Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/1978 Meeting , , . M I NUT E S -- EUGENE CITY COUNCIL June 26, 1978 Adjourned meeting from June 21, 1978, 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., June 26, 1978, in the Council Chamber with the fOllowing Councilors present: D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Tom Williams, Eric Haws, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I. Public Hearings A. Consideration of Fire Code Revisions Manager said the proposal was for adoption of the 1976 Uniform Fire Code (UFC) with amendments. Council had already adopted the 1973 version and this action would update the provisions of the UFC. A second issue involved is the adoption of the amendments to the Code which relax the sprinkler ordinance passed by the Council June 23, 1975. The amendments would require smoke detectors installed in all e private dwellings upon the sale of the dwelling, and would require installation of smoke detectors in all units of multi-residential dwellings. The resulting adoption of the Code with the amendments will be a code more stringent than the minimum code proposed by the UFC. Fire Marshal Wendell Wick, Battalion Chief David Boggs, and Mick Nolte, Superintendent of Building Inspection, were available to answer questions. Assistant Manager said Council should place its focus on the following issues: 1) updating of the existing code, which would bring the city ordinance into compliance with State building and other uniform building codes; 2) whether or not there should be a relaxation of the present law as applied to existing structures, i.e., whether or not the current requirement for sprinklers should be relaxed to allow highrise residential structures to have life safety sprinklers along with smoke detectors; 3) the installation of smoke detection devices in residential occupancies in the community; and 4) whether or not sprinklers should be required in new structures. He noted all were extensions of a policy decision made for implementation of the master satellite program for early warning and containment of fires. The proposed amendments are an attempt to deal with the question of costs of fire defenses and what can be, or should be, the level of fire suppression for the community. The intent of the master satel- lite system was to provide more rapid response with less manpower. In dealing with highrise structures, the fire responses are different in - that ladders are needed, and more manpower is needed to evacuate 6/26/78--1 455 people and save property. He noted the presence of smoke and degree of panic and disorientation created m~or problems for those being - evacuated as well as for firefighters. Thus, the presence of smoke and the ability to contain fires, while people are exiting, are the m~or reasons for the proposed amendments. He noted one m~or question Council will hear in testimony this evening will be the cost passed on to renters. He said that was a very legitimate concern. However, he cautioned Council that cost must be balanced against the ability of the community to offset that by either increasing costs for fire suppression at the pUblic expense, or accepting the risk of loss of lives. It was felt there were some relative costs that should be borne by the developer. This amendment is an attempt to reduce those costs by relaxing the previous sprinkler ordinance passed by Council in 1975. Fire Marshal Wendell Wick said the existing ordinance only relates to highrise residential property. He said there were two such buildings that have let bids on the requirements for the highrise ordinance. With the reliability of smoke detectors, it was felt the reduction of the sprinkler systems could be accommodated. Battalion Chief David Boggs reviewed for Council a recent fire in the Willamette Towers, 1313 Lincoln. He noted there had been 13 firefighters and four pieces of apparatus immediately on the scene. However, because of heavy smoke conditions in the building, there were problems in evacuating the tenants, with some being forceably removed. He noted this was not the most spectacular fire, but was e a good example of how the operation can be confused by smoke hazard conditions with elderly people as tenants in a building. Assistant Manager added that the purpose of the proposed system would be to effect a safe exit of the occupants of a building and to contain the fire. Smoke detectors provide an early warning, and the sprinkler system modifications with adequate exitways available would be helpful. Two highrise residential buildings in the community that could not readily meet the requirements are the Eugene Manor and Eugene Hotel. Others would be able to meet the requirements at relatively modest costs. He noted the Eugene Manor presently is under order by the Fire Marshal requiring a one-hour watch all night because it does not meet the present requirements. Mr. Haws questioned what the cost would be to the City to add the required manpower for safety and fire suppression. Assistant Manager noted the fire described by Mr. Boggs in the Willamette Tower in which there were 13 personnel and four pieces of equipment. He said with the proposed modifications and response by the master satellite system, the normal response to a highrise fire, given there are no other multiple alarms in the community, would be eight to nine people with three pieces of equipment. However, he said the issue centered . 6/26/78--2 ~5' I on whether or not the firefighters could get to the fires if the exits e were being used by those attempting to evacuate. He estimated the cost of $.25 million per year for a ten-man crew and equipment, with attendant operational costs. Mr. Delay clarified Council was considering that all buildings even- tually would have to come into compliance with the code, and this was an introduction of a less expensive way to meet that compliance. Public hearing was opened. Timothy Birr, 2905 Mill, representing the Eugene Firefighters Associ- ation, spoke in favor of the revision. He said the National Fire Prevention Organization set a goal of 50-percent reduction in loss of life and property, and smoke detectors have a potential to attain 40-percent reduction. He noted 70 percent of Oregon's fire losses occur in residential occupancies. The Oregon State Fire Standards determined that residential fire problem in Oregon is the state's greatest area of concern. Smoke detectors would allow fires to be discovered, save lives by early warning, and save property. Regarding the relaxation of the sprinkler system, he said with the existing manpower it was extremely difficult to fight fires in highrise buildings. Elevators were useless in getting firefighters and equipment to the point of origin of the fire, and he noted sprinklers would help contain that point of origin. Some concern was expressed as to the tenants of many highrise buildings being elderly and not ambulatory e which increases loss of life. David Freedman, 1027 Leigh Street, represented the Multi-Family Housing Council of the Lane County Homebuilders Association. He supported smoke detectors in all rental units provided the landlord is not responsible for the six-month inspections. He said existing rental units should not be required to have smoke detectors and sprinkler systems installed. Larry Thorp, 644 North A Street, Springfield, represented the owners of five of the six highrise apartments affected. He introduced into the record a proposal which had been distributed to Council June 14. In response to staff's memo dated June 23, he felt there had been no data to support the relative value of a sprinkler system versus its cost. No statement was included indicating the number of jurisdic- tions which have adopted a similar ordinance. No statistics were provided on the life safety value of the sprinkler systems. He noted the cost figures in his exhibit were obtained through bids from reputable companies. He felt staff's approach was a choice between smoke detectors and sprinkler systems on one hand, or increased fire suppression costs on the other. He did not agree with that. He did not know what apparatus was available in Eugene compared to other cities. He said there are no statistics on the number of communities that use three-man crews versus six-man crews. He noted all five highrise structures had been in existence since 1968, some since 1925, and Eugene had been able to get by with the existing fire crews. He - 6/26/78--3 ~1 suggested perhaps the sprinkler systems are not as required as they are represented to Council by staff. He said there are eight highrise e buildings affected, two being the U of 0 buildings which are in the process of being sprinkled. The other six building owners are all willing to install smoke detectors in each unit in lieu of the enormous costs of putting in sprinkler systems. He said the cost would be $500,000 for the five buildings he represented for smoke detectors and sprinkler systems, or $800,000 for full sprinkler systems and smoke detectors. Emile Mortier, 767 Willamette Street, professional engineer, said there was no more serious problem in fires than to protect residents. However, he noted the scope of the probl em is just now bei ng researched, i.e., the effectiveness of sprinkler systems. Based on research to date, he said the water volume of the type of sprinkler systems needed may be one-fourth to one-fifth the volume required by present standards. He said this could seriously affect the cost and type used in residen- tial occupancies. The question of evacuation of tenants is a most serious problem for highrise structures. He said it should be recognized there are alternatives to sprinkler systems in highrise buil di ngs. The national standards are based on minimum fire supres- sion effectiveness in communities. Research is being conducted on how equipment can be used both for evacuation and firefighting. He said there is no doubt the smoke detectors for early warning are available at a moderate cost and are very valuable for evacuation and fire response. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard, spoke as a member of the National Mobile e Home Advisory Council. She suggested changes in specific language in the present ordinance: On page 6, requiring the smoke detector to be centrally located on the ceiling, she suggested that installa- tion be five to seven inches below the ceiling, on the wall, to be more effective because of dead air space near the ceiling. On page 8, regarding single-family homes requiring the smoke detector be centrally located on the corridor giving access to sleeping rooms, she suggested each be inserted for "the", noting sometimes sleeping rooms were widely separated. She also suggested that some provision be made for a fine to the tenant for removing batteries from smoke detectors. Regarding the sprinkler system requirement, she said it was regarded as a property protection factor rather than a life safety factor for mobil e homes. The National Bureau of Standards focused on the signi- ficance of early warnings provided by smoke detectors, and having a sufficient egress. She noted there was a need for fire management programs, with tenants being able to exit from buildings while fire- fighters are getting in. She said she had not seen benefits from a sprinkler system as being that great. She also expressed concern about adding requirements which would add to the cost of housing without giving concurrent benefits. She suggested that Council go ahead with the requirement for smoke detectors but wait a year or two on the sprinkler system, noting the research that is coming out could be helpful in determining the extent to which sprinkler systems should be used. - 6/26/78--4 l.f58 I I ~~~- Those standing in favor of the revisions numbered 1; those in the . audience standing who were against the proposed revisions numbered about 200. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Assistant Manager said Mr. Mortier had stated very well the concerns with fires in highrise buildings. That concern has been dealt with in Eugene, as the code now requires sprinkler systems in highrise buildings. The proposed ordinance this evening would seek to modify that code because of economics and the advancement in technology. Regarding water volume, he said there is a provision in the code that water volume should be sufficient to provide adequate pressure for ten sprinkler heads in anyone fire area. He said there were other alternatives for new construction of highrise structures. The ques- tion before Council is dealing with the existing structures and attendent problems. Regarding the question of benefits, he said the proposed ordinance was trying to weigh the ability to evacuate people as well as deal with fire supression. It does involve balancing of interests and the degree of risks the City is willing to accept. Regarding costs, he said staff was aware that at least in one building there is a modification bid that represents a substantial savings. The sprinkler system as proposed with the smoke detectors will cost substantially less than the existing provisions in the code. The question before Council is the degree of life safety it is prepared to e accept as a community. Ms. Smith noted the improvement of smoke detection devices, and wondered if use of those could provide an adequate system. Assistant Manager said that staff was suggesting the smoke detectors are a wise investment. However, he noted the issue is one of evacuation of a highrise structure. Compliance to the code includes a separate smoke-free exitway. In considering alternatives to a sprinkler system, it was found that they would be far more expensive than installing the sprinkler system. Mr. Williams questioned if sprinkler systems were so important in buildings of certain heights, why they were not included in the National Fire Prevention Code. Assistant Manager said the issues were offsetting costs, which becomes a local determination of what is minimum fire defense for a city. The UFC attempts to deal with only setting a minimum defense level. Determination of costs is felt to be a local issue, not national. He noted it also involves who serves on the boards, and compromises made for those interests. Mr. Williams expressed his concern with locali'ties amending national codes, feeling it created a "bad scene". He asked if Ms. Niven, with her experience at the national level, felt this fire code was different from others and ought to be upgraded on a local level. Ms. Niven said she could not answer. - 6/26/78--5 '+5' In response to a question from Mr. Bradley, Mr. Wick said the written instructions should be posted on the wall so new tenants will be aware of how the smoke detector properly works. He said smoke detectors . need to be cleaned at least once a year; beeping will occur if the smoke detector is dirty or battery is going dead. Without instruc- tions, the tenant may not know how to deal with the problem. Mr. Obie said he was empathetic with the cost of housing and attendent problems of being a landlord. However, it seemed to him the maj or question was: What is the value of a human life? Mayor Keller agreed with Mr. Obie, saying this is an opportunity and responsibility for Council to adopt, at least in concept, noting changes could be made later. He recognized the cost involved, but thought it was incidental to the consideration of saving lives. He noted Council was concerned with housing costs, but it was difficult because it seemed everything Council did affected costs in the commu- ni ty . However, those actions are either to protect or enhance the livability for the citizens. C.B. 1703--Concerning the fire prevention code; amending Sections 8.190 and 8.200 of the Code, 1971; 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. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. With concurrence of Mr. Hamel and Mr. Bradley, the three amend- ments offered by Betty Niven will be incorporated in the ordinance. Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to amend the motion to delete the requirement of sprinkling on existing systems in dwelling structures. Mr. Williams said he felt if the City were going to depart from the standard code, Council had an obligation to show why, and he felt that argument simply had not been made. He questioned how many lives and how much money per life is involved, saying he never had gotten an answer. He felt the people who wrote the national codes were far more expert and adept than City Council about sprinkling systems. Mr. Delay was surprised Mr. Williams would say the City should defer to anonymous national standards when there are unique situations existing in Eugene. He noted unanimous support from the staff and the firefighters' union, and preferred to defer to an excellent group of firefighters. Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which failed with Williams and Hamel voting aye; Bradley, Haws, Delay, Lieuallen, - Obie, and Smith voting no. 6/26/78--6 "'0 I Mr. Bradley said he had heard the emphasis on priority of saving e lives. He felt in that light, passing the ordinance would be a relaxation of sprinkler systems and lives would be more protected by the present ordinance. He was going to vote no on the ordinance for that reason, although he did favor the other proposals. Assistant Manager noted the proposal of requiring smoke detectors is really a warning system that sprinkler systems do not provide. He felt it tended to be more a trade-off than a relaxation of present standards. Mr. Delay encouraged Mr. Bradley to reconsider his stance. He said there may be a relaxation in costs, but not in reasonable protection, and Council had a commitment to protect the health and safety of the citizens. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors pesent voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18213. Assistant Manager noted the amendments as suggested by Council and Ms. Niven would be brought back before Council at the July 10 meeting for consideration. A short recess was taken. e B. Appeal of Hearings Official Diagrammatic Approval, Located East of Fairway Loop and South of Eastwood Lane (Fairway Loop PUO) (PO 78-7) Approved by Hearings Official May 9, 1978. Jim Saul, planner, said the proposed PUD involves 65 units on 6.9 acres located behind (west) of Reed & Cross. Diagrammatic approval was granted May 19, 1978, subject to conditions. The only issue raised in the appeal involved a change in the location of traffic diverter on Fairway Loop. Diverters presently are installed at Eastwood and Southwood on Fairway Loop to prevent southbound travel. The Traffic Engineer recommended, and the Hearings Official adopted the recommendation, that the southerly diverter be moved northward a sufficient distance to allow southbound movement from this development on Fairway Loop to Southwood. That shift would not change the basic status of Fairway Loop, since overall southbound traffic would still be precluded. However, if that change were not made, all of the traffic from this development would have to exit onto Eastwood Lane. The appellants o~ect to this modification of the existing diverters. He noted that with the present zoning the development could accommodate up to ten units per acre. Mr. Saul distributed a map to Council to explain the change in the diverter system, with the exits for the proposed development. He noted that Condition No.1 of the Findings and Conclusion of the Hearings Official made approval contingent upon subsequent review of the change in traffic. Council is limited to the sole issue in the appeal of the - 6/26/78--7 4~1 I - I change in the diverters. He said while the property does extend to Southwood Lane, it does not have access to Southwood Lane. A 1 so, i f the change as suggested to one-way status of Fairway Loop is not e permitted, all access (ingress and egress) would have to occur on Eastwood Lane. Mr. Hamel wondered if staff had given any consideration to the present situation, noting the heavy traffic because of the increased develop- ment in the Oakway area. Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, said the conditions are not ideal, but the roads do have the capacity to handle the traffic generated by this development. He said a daily traffic count in November showed the following: Eastwood Lane, 990 cars per day; Westwood Lane, 240 cars per day; Fairway Loop south of Eastwood, 2,200 cars per day; and Fairway Loop near Country Club Road, 900 cars per day. Residential units would generate six to eight trips per dwelling unit per day. In calling for ex parte contacts, Mr. Hamel noted he had had several phone calls on the issue and would abstain if Council so no ted . There was no such indication. No other Councilors indi- cated ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Scott Taylor, 24913 Woodland Avenue, Veneta, the attorney representing the Fairway Loop residents, spoke in favor of the appeal. He noted e recent studies regarding the traffic in the area already indicated a very serious problem. Access is clustered and difficult. He fel t the proposal would favor the new residences because it would move the traffic diverter. The total concern regarded the traffic in the area. He hoped Council would request a traffic engineering plan with citizen input to develop a better traffic situation for the area. Gene Williamson, 2160 Fairway Loop, felt the City had recognized the traffic problem on Fairway Loop. He said through traffic is fast, and on a narrow street that is in need of repair and has no sidewalks or gutters. He noted a safety hazard for children playing in the area. The, development would add 70 percent more people and autos in a neighborhood that has developed its character over the last 40 years. He cited the 1990 Plan, and submitted that the density and traffic that would be generated by this development would be incompat- ible and would encroach on the neighborhood. Bill Flegal, 2020 Westwood Lane, said the neighborhood is extremely concerned about the development with the attendent traffic problems. He said the City has already acknowledged the existence of a serious traffic problem with this area. That problem would be further exacer- bated by all of the development to the north. It seemed illogical to him to further compound that prOblem with high-density development. He felt it would be unfair to the residents to increase the traffic before a solution to the problem has been developed. He fel t Fairway -- 6/26/78--8 Af~2.. . Loop had become an arterial in the last three years. He implored - Council to give serious consideration to the appeal and delay develop- ment until a definitive traffic study could be made. Arnie Pluid, 265 Fairway Loop, noted he and several neighbors had to back out of their driveways onto Fairway Loop, with a resulting hazardous condition. He recognized the very serious problem in that area. Dan O'Neil, 2157 Eastwood Lane, said during the peak hours of traffic it was difficult to get onto Oakway Road. The intersection of Country Club Road created a large backup of traffic. He said this was a situation that is already clustered and there is no answer. He thought before the development were approved, there should be some careful consideration given to finding a traffic pattern that will work. He entered a petition into the record signed by the neighbor- hood people. Speaking against the appeal was: Peter Thompson, 2440 Oak Grove Drive, representing the applicant, Robert Bennett. He fel t there had been an equitable solution to the traffic problem, worked out by City staff and the developers, that would create minimal impact, and traffic would be moved expeditiously. Access off Eastwood Lane would be as close as possible to Reed & Cross and the other access down Fairway Loop. He said there would be only 58 units in the development, noting it would be 8.4 units per acre, which was consi- derably under the 10 units per acre allowed under current zoning. e With the 8 units, 350 to 450 trips per day would be generated, and he felt this would not impact traffic. It was noted that unimproved roads can handle 10,000 trips per day. It was felt that the develop- ment plans would minimize the impact of traffic on the area. Robert Bennett, applicant, said he had met several times with the neighborhood groups, and worked with the Planning and Traffic staff. Given the constraints of the plan, the basic zoning was less than 10 units per acre, limited access, that it will be basically an adult proj ec 1:e, he said he could not think of anything else he could do to make it a better proj ect for the area. He felt it would be a quality project that would not encroach on the area or be an incompatible use. Rather, it would be an asset and not a liability to the community. Brandy Uhrbrand, 2181 Eastwood Lane, felt the impact of the develop- ment would very minimal. She said the traffic problem was not created by the residents, but rather by through traffic. She would like to see owner-occupi ed units developed, and hoped these owners mi ght j o;n the other residents in finding a better traffic solution. Mr. Saul said the change in traffic flow on that portion of Fairway Loop as proposed would have to be formally approved by both Planning Commission and City Council. He said conditions were established for specifically minimizing traffic impact and by offering direct and alternate access without using Eastwood Lane. Also, he said if the e condition were not established, Eastwood would have to bear all the 6/26/78--9 tf'3 l . I traffic from the development. He said under the traffic diverter policy, staff had worked at length with neighbors in the area to " establish the best possible diverter. The proposal would not modify the essential aspects of that solution as being the best available and was done in cooperation with the neighborhood as a whole and in particular with the residents in that area. He said while there would be some increase in traffic on Eastwood, the actual amount would be minimal and less than capacity standards under the City Code. Mr. Hamel noted the traffic problem had existed for some time, and he hoped that staff would address the overall traffic problem in the area, or perhaps temporarily stop construction of homes in that area until the traffic problem was solved. Jack O'Neil, 485 Fair Oaks Drive, in rebuttal, said there is only one exit onto Oakway Road for the whole area. The new development will be faced with the same crowded traffic problems and will add to that problem. He did not feel the traffic diverter would do that much good. However, he did note he was in favor of the development as being a good use of the land. However, he felt before the develop- ment went ahead, there should be a traffic study done of the entire neighborhood. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Lieuallen felt the m~or problem was through traffic on Fairway e Loop. He suggested perhaps there should be a diverter system to eliminate through traffic and leave access only for residents. Mr. Hanks noted there had been such a diverter, with serious objections from the neighborhood people; thus, the change to the present diverter system. Subsequent discussion centered around conducting another traffic study in the area, and getting response from neighborhood as to how they feel about eliminating through traffic in the area. It was noted for Council that that option is open; however, a thorough study had just been completed resulting in the present diverter which was favored by a m~ ority of the residents. Council felt the PUD should be approved, but the traffic problem needed to be addressed. Mr. Allen pointed out the problem of further study in the area, noting the just-completed T-2000 Plan. He said there was no immediate answer or solution for arterials in the area, and staff is limited in what it can do there. In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Mr. Saul said options open for Council at this time were: 1) sustain the appeal in its entirety; 2) deny the appeal in total; 3) approve the development and modify the conditions. Mr. Haws felt the street should be blocked at point A (on map distributed by Mr. Saul), and the PUD should take access off Fairway Loop. - 6/26/78--10 1f4l1 Mr. Delay said the point of discussion should focus on the fact that e the first two conditions of the approval are that the traffic diverter be approved by the Planning Commission and Council, and a year later another study would be done in the area. He wondered what more could be done. He felt Council had to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence that this development will exceed the capacity of the road network. Many areas of the city have unresolved problems of increased traffic and hazardous conditions. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to deny the appeal, to approve the Hearings Official approval, and to adopt findings of fact. Motion carried with all Councilors voting aye, except Mr. Haws voting no. Mr. Obie reiterated he would like to know whether or not the residents in the neighborhood would rather have the option of eliminating through traffic. He suggested the issue of eliminating through traffic in the entire area being placed on a future agenda. Mayor Keller suggested Mr. Obie bring that request to a Wednesday meeting. C. Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Planning Director's Approval of Minor Partition Located East of Oakway Road on Sandy Drive (Atwood) (M 78-39) Mr. Saul said this minor partition had been submitted February 24, 1978, prior to Council's discussion and resultant moratorium on panhandle lots. At that time, Council had directed staff that those applications filed prior to the moratorium be considered under the e present standards. This application was reviewed and approved under those standards. It was appealed to the Planning Commission who reaffirmed the approval; subsequent appeal came to City Council. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Councilors. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Robert A. Voas, 2216 Sandy Drive, spoke in favor of the appeal. He thanked Council for the moratorium on panhandle lots. He asked that Council postpone action on this application until after the review of panhandle lots had been completed. He noted the property had been owned since 1955, and this application was filed only this year. He felt asking for three and one-half months' delay would not be unrea- sonable. He noted a problem of enforcement of criteria that would be solved by the current review of panhandle lots, and wished for delay on this application until those new criteria were ready. " 6/26/78--11 if'S -~-- -- - R. G. Atwood, 520 Antelope Way, noted in regard to a delay, the building season is approaching and he was looking forward to estab- - lishing his new home. He entered into the record an exhibit and asked Council to r~ ect the appeal. Mr. Saul reiterated when Council passed the ordinance establishing moratorium on panhandles, it specifically directed staff that appli- cations filed prior to the effective date be reviewed under existing standards. He noted also the ordinance establishing the moratorium for six months at a minimum also allows for an extension of an addi- tional six months if necessary. Mr. Haws wondered if Council had the option of delaying. Joyce Bendamin, City Attorney's office, advised it would not be in Council's best interest to take such action. In rebuttal, Mr. Voas, said the group opposing the panhandle lot was not concerned about the size of the lot, but felt the biggest problem to be the actual policing of the area, i.e., screening and paving. He felt the review under way would lead to better enforcement. Thus, the reason for asking for the delay. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to deny the appeal, to uphold the approval, and to adopt findings of fact. - Mr. Hamel said he would stay with his previous convictions regarding opposition to panhandle lots, especially in established neighborhoods. Mr. Delay did not think this was a case where Council could go by the way i t fel t. He noted Council was in a quasij udicial position dealing with existing code. He felt it irresponsible to seek out one individual case and apply different rules to a particular case, in view of the existing code. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Hamel and Obie voting no. Mr. Bradley left the meeting. D. Federal and State Revenue Sharing Budgets Manager noted this was a requirement by State law, and the income received would be assigned to various departmental budgets and treated as part of the overall city budget. Loren Stubbert, Finance Depart- ment, said the funds would be used as a property tax offset in the general fund. . 6/26/78--12 LfU - ---------' . Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. e Action by Council will be taken at Wednesday, June 28, meeting. E. Annual City of Eugene Budget for Fiscal Year 1978-79 Manager noted items dealing with the budget were attached to Council's Wednesday agenda. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Action will be taken by Council at Wednesday, June 28, meeting. F. Public Works Bid Awards (Attached) Mr. Allen reviewed the bids and recommended awarding to low bidders. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to award to low bidders as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. II. Ordinances for Second Reading The following council bill, heard the first time June 12, 1978, and lacking unanimous consent, was brought back for second reading at this time: e C.B. 1697--Rezoning from M-2 and M-3 to C-2 PO property located at north- east corner of West 11th Avenue and Beltline Road (Obie Communications Corp.) (Z 78-10) was read by number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, except Haws voting no and Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18214. III. Ordinances for First Reading--None. IV. Resolutions Res. No. 2943--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for period June 12 through June 26, 1978, was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. e 6/26/78--13 ~67 --.-- - . V. Approval of Minutes Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to approve Council minutes . June 12, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. VI. Adoption of Findings of Fact--Treehouse PUD (PD 77-9) Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the findings of fact. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was a~ourned to June 28, 1978. ~nl~ Ci ty Manager DT:so/CM7a1 e e 6/26/78--14 4b9 I . . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 'HORKS .- Engineering Division Bid No. 6 Opened: June 20, 1978 I L PAVING, SANITARY SEWER fu.~D STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision; sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the north, south and east boundaries of Leo and Betty Davis Subdivision; and paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Linmar Subdivision and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the east margin of Linmar Subdivision. (Job Nos. 1396 & 1464) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.--------------______$ 0 $ 80,296.50 2. Wildish Construction CO.--------------------__$ 0 $ 88,623.80 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-----------------$ 91,901.25 $ 89,508.75 4. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.-----------------___$ 94,892.20 $ 94,312.65 5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.---------------_$ 0 $103,702.10 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted 28' Pav. .$27.l5/FF None None e San.Lat. $0.09/SF San.Serv. $210.00/Each Stm. Swr. $435.00/Lot COMPLETION DATE: September 1, 1978 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. PAVING Western Drive from Calvin Street to 70 feet west; and paving Calvin Street from Western Drive to Harlow Road (Job Nos. 1564 & 872) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate ... 1.. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.------------------_$ 0 $ 45,092.95 2. Wi1dish Construction CO.----------------_____$ 0 $ 47,789.83 3. Morse, Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------___$ 0 $ 50,870.70 4. Benge Paving, Inc.--------------_____________$ 56,924.25 $ 52,313.70 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City 26'-28' Pav. $19.50/FF None Driveway (5"-7") $2.75/SF SideT.Nalk (411) $1. 67/ SF San. Service $655.00/Lot - COHPLETION DATE: October 1, 1978 . 1-/, 'I Page 1 of 2 \" . 1 . 3. ' PAVING Fire Station No. 9 Parking Lot ,e (Job No. 1016) Bidders: Contract Cost: 1. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.----------------------$ 11,827.50 2. Benge Paving, Inc.------------------------------$ 12,366.00 3. Wi1dish Construction Co.------------------------$ 14,816.01 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.-------------------$ 16,876.50 Cost to City: Amount Budgeted: $11,827.50 None (See Budget note) COMPLET ION DATE: August 15~ 1978 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND PEDESTRIAN WAY within Clarey Plat and Clarey Plat First Addition Opened: June 22, 1978 (Job No. 1433) SCHEDULE ItAIt Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, lnc.------------------$ 726,350.10 $ 723,723.85 2. Wi1dish Construction Co.-----------------------$ 752.408.12 $ 752,109.62 e Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City: Amount Budgeted 28'-36' Pave $27.30/FF San.Lat. $0.135/SF San. Service $330.00/Lot Ped.Way $15.00/Lot Storm Sewer $965.00/Lot $192,300.00 $137,100.00 COMPLETION DATE: November 1, 1978 SCHEDULE ItBIt , Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate 1. Morse Bros. Contractors, lnc.------------------$ 634,131.50 $ 629,724.00 2. Wildish Construction CO.-----------------------$ 632,963.42 $ 644,651.11 Schedule ItBIt to be awarded by Developer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e . "170 )~ Page 2 of ~~