HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/1981 Meeting (2)
!
- ~ "...
M I NUT E S
e Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
July 13, 1981
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg,
D. W. Hamel, Cynthia Wooten, Eric Haws, and Emily Schue.
The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was
called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Consideration of Proposed Ordinance Change Regarding Assault and
Battery and Intentional Intimidation (memo, ordinance, and
additional information distributed)
Mike Gleason, City Manager, introduced Chris Mahoney, Human Rights Specialist,
City Manager's Office.
Ms. Mahoney stated that on April 8, 1981, the City Council ,was approached by the
local NAACP Chapter and by Baruch Fischhoff, president of the Human Rights
e Council, urging the drafting of an ordinance dealing with the acts of racial,
religious, and other minority group harassment occuring in the community at that
time. The counc?l's response was to direct the Human Rights staff, Human Rights
Council, and City Attorney to draft an ordinance addressing these concerns. The
proposed ordinance does not address all forms of written and verbal harassment
which have surfaced in the community, but it does speak to specific actions.
There is a bill in the State Legislature which has passed both houses which
would amend the ORS statute regarding subjection of persons to fear of imminent
harm or felonious activity The draft ordinance under consideration rewords the
existing City codes and creates penalties regarding intimidation. The assault
and battery penalties would remain the same, but the penalty for aggravated
assault would be increased to $1,000 or one year in jailor both.
Mr. Lindberg asked for an update on the proposed State statutes. Ms. Mahoney
stated that the Governor's bill is the only one pending and amendments are
being considered. Some question has arisen as to whether Governor Atiyeh
will sign that bill with the amendments.
Public hearing was opened.
Speaking in favor of the ordinance:
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 1
~
Baruch Fischhoff, President, Human Rights Council, stated that the Human Rights
e Councll extends its strongest possible recommendation in favor of passage of the
proposed anti-harassment ordinance. The City Council has shown great leadership
in initiating the ordinance and great sensitivity in involving varied community
groups in its creation. On behalf of the many groups whose interests they try
to represent, the Human Rights Council is grateful for having been included in
the processes. They also appreciate the careful attention given to this matter
by the Police Department, City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, and the
Human Rights staff. He stated that now is the time to complete the process by
approving the proposed ordinance. In doing so, the City Council will send a
clear and lasting signal that Eugene has no place for intolerance, that Eugene's
strength is in the diversity of its citizens and their ability to make unique
contributions, and that a few cowardly acts will not turn the City against
itself. For those who may consider opposing this ordinance, the Human Rights
Council would ask them to remember that this ordinance does not confer special
privileges, does not mandate Affirmative Action, nor even ban discimination.
All it does is forbid acts of violence and against fellow citizens. Regarding
those who like the ordinance, but would restrict its scope by excluding from it
one group or another, the Human Rights Council felt that such an exclusion would
constitute a form of approval to some of the worst el~ments of society to harass
groups X or Y, implying that they are second-class citizens, not worthy of
the protection afforded to other groups. The Human Rights Council urges
the City Council to take a strong stand on this issue as it has on other human
rights issues. That stand will show those protected by the ordinance that their
welfare is of utmost concern. It will also show the few who are causing this
trouble that it is time to reconsider their views and learn to tolerate and
enjoy all of their fellows. By an active leadership, the City Council can make
e everyone stronger and prouder than before this business began.
Coralie Washington, NAACP, stated that Martha Green had received another letter
which frightened her and her children. In addition, the Greens' tires were
punctured. She and others in the NAACP are glad the City Council is working for
a better community. The Ku Klux Klan or others perpetrating these deeds should
know that Eugene cares about its minorities. She hopes the ordinance will be
passed.
Jose de la Pena, Eugene Commission on the Rights of Minorities, said that the
commission endorses passage of the proposed amendments to Sections 4.735 and
4.990 of the Eugene City Code. The Minority Commission has received endorsements
for passage of this ordinance from groups and individuals representing the
Asian, Hispanic, Indian, and Black communities. It is the commission's belief
that with the passage of these amendments, the City will have re-emphasized its
commitment to protect groups and individuals from acts of intimidation based
upon their group status. The Minority Commission recognizes the fact that these
proposed amendments are only one means of responding to future acts of intimida-
tion, and that community education, awareness, and assistance are vital elements
in an overall program designed to combat intimidation and to foster the quality
of life sought by all Eugeneans. The commission respectively recommends passage
of the ordinance.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 2
Nancy Uhlhorn, Clergy and Laity Concerned, stated that they favor passage of
this ordinance. In addition, she has both black and white children and for
e their safety would also urge passage of this ordinance.
R. C. Darby stated he agreed with Mr. Fischhoff. He noted that he is a minority
and parent of mixed children. The ordinance will protect all citizens. He urges
adoption of the ordinance.
Julie Aspinwall-Lamberts, President, Eugene Commission on the Rights of Women,
stated that she is here to comment on the proposed ordinance dealing with
intimidation and harassment. This ordinance arose out of incidences of harass-
ment both in this community and elsewhere in the state, resulting in fear and
physical injury to individual citizens. This harassment was clearly directed at
these persons solely because of their membership in groups that have historically
been the subject of social abuse. Concern has not only been voiced locally, but
also at the State level, as evidenced by legislation recently proposed by the
State House and Senate. The Commissions on the Rights of Women and Minorities,
as well as the Common Council through its Legislative Subcommittee, have actively
supported the passage of House Bill 2703. This bill would create the crime of
intimidation, and includes within its protection the groupings of individuals
named in the ordinance before the council tonight. At this point, it is unclear
what the future of this proposed legislation will be. However, regardless of
the outcome, they feel that Eugene should remain a recognized leader in the
protection of individual rights by the adoption of this ordinance. She further
stated that it has traditionally been the case that violence against members of
disadvantaged groups is heightened in times of economic decline. The groups
enumerated by the ordinance would, by their position in society, be particularly
e vulnerable to the venting of the frustrations held by some segments of the
community. In Eugene, violence against women has increased in recent years.
Nationally, studies have shown that economic factors playa role in the increased
incidence of rape and domestic abuse. The increase in the number of such
problems in Eugene may also be linked to these factors. Similarly, persons of
differing lifestyles are often perceived by some as being more vulnerable and
therefore convenient targets for the venting of frustration and anger. Life-
styles such as one's marital status or sexual orientation reflect choices
lawfully made by citizens in this society. Persons making such choices deserve
to lead a life free from violence perpetrated by those holding different beliefs.
Violence in this society and in this community is unacceptable. It is particular-
ly unacceptable when it is visited upon people solely by virtue of their belong-
ing to a particular status group and when it is unrelated to any conduct of that
indi vi dua 1 . In their advisory capacity to the City Council, the Women's Commis-
sion believes that this ordinance addresses concern voiced by mutual constituents.
Therefore, on behalf of the Eugene Commission on the Rights of Women, she
strongly recommends the adoption of this ordinance.
Dana Weinstein, 585 West 26th, stated that she was asked by clients and members
of the gay community to address the council on their behalf. They would applaud
any efforts the council and the community can take to make sure these kinds of
actions will be stopped. People in the gay community have told her of similar
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 3
violent incidents against them as noted by previous speakers. Those of the same
sex living together are assumed to be gay, even if that is not so. She showed
e pictures of vandalism occurring in the homes of those suspected of being gay.
People have started fights and otherwise harassed those suspected of being gay.
She cited a number of instances. The gay community wants the council to know
they support this ordinance. She distributed handouts showing the types of
literature that hate groups are distributing around the state. Ms. Miller
requested that these items be entered into the public record.
Jane Alward, 2100 Madison, stated that she is a member of the Democratic Central
Committee and they support this ordinance. The need has been seen in the city
as well as other areas. This ordinance would be a good beginning.
Willie Polite, President of the local chapter of the NAACP, stated that there
should be an ordinance to help clear up many things that people are doing. In
the last three weeks, a second letter was received by Martha Green and no one
knew of this letter because she was frightened to discuss it. A copy of the
letter was distributed to the council. They are asking citizens and the council
to support this ordinance. This is not the ordinance that the NAACP wanted
because they wanted an ordinance with "teeth" in it and this one will only "gum"
a little bit. However, this is a start. If this ordinance is adopted, it will
assist in providing help for the community. He feels the community wants this
ordinance passed.
With no testimony in opposition, public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindberg asked staff why there could not be more teeth in this ordinance.
e Les Swanson, City Attorney, stated that this ordinance is an attempt to protect
minorities but not to interfere with First Amendment and Oregon Constitutional
rights to free speech. This would enhance the penalty for assault and battery,
harming property, or intimidation, even if it is done by a corporation. The
bill in the Legislature, sponsored by Governor Atiyeh, has some problems with
its original draft. It would have considered it a crime to say something that
would cause someone to fear violence. The First Amendment requires danger of
real harm. Trying to get more teeth into this ordinance would require more time
that was available. More can be done over a longer period of time. Mr.
Lindberg asked if it is all right to insult someone but not to threaten them.
Mr. Swanson stated that contemptible speech is still protected, but when the
conduct reaches imminent physical harm, it would be a punishable offense.
Outrageous and contemptible things can be said to people, but when they reach
libel or physical harm, it is a defense situation. Mr. Lindberg noted that it
sounds as though there is a fine line between threats and verbal abuse. He
requested more clarification. Mr. Swanson stated that verbal abuse by someone
with a knife would be a crime.
Ms. Miller stated that the testimony has expressed it well. Hatred and bigotry
cannot be stopped and she does not want to see freedom of speech threatened.
However, this is a statement of acceptance of all people and opposes violence
such as physical abuse and vandalism. It is a statement that must be made. Ms.
Smith stated strong support for the ordinance. By passage of this type of
ordinance, Eugene continues to maintain its livability. The council is already
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 4
on record in support of this kind of legislation by the approval of the Legisla-
e tive Subcommittee minutes. She urged that the ordinance be adopted. Mr.
Lindberg added that by protecting the few, everyone is being protected. He
regrets legislation cannot occur against intolerance, but he does support the
proposed ordinance. Ms. Schue expressed gratitude for those who had worked on
this ordinance. She is glad to have this opportunity to vote for something she
strongly supports. Ms. Wooten also indicated support for the proposed ordinance.
tB 2328--An ordinance concerning assault and battery, and intentional
intimidation; amending Sections 4.730 and 4.990 of the Eugene
Code, 1971; adding a new section 4.731 to that code; and
declaring an emergency.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
Council Bill 2328 was read the second time by council bill number only.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present
voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18826.
B. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning--Property located south of 40th Avenue,
west of Brae Burn Drive, from County RR Rural Residential District to
City R-1/PD Low-Density Residential District with Planned Unit
e Development procedures (Smith/Breeden) (A/Z 81-2) (map distributed)
Mr. Gleason introduced Terry Jones, Planning.
Ms. Jones stated that this proposal for annexation and rezoning is for 11.5
acres in the South Hills (County RR Rural Residential District to City R-1/PD
Low-Density Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures). The
property is located south of 40th Avenue and west of Brae Burn Drive. It is
contiguous to the city on the north, south, and east sides. Adjoining property
owned by Rexius was recently annexed to the City. The urban growth boundary is
1,700 feet west of the proposed annexation. The Smith property was considered
for annexation in 1970 but excluded because of poor soil stability. Approval of
the Rexius Annexation was partially based upon the potential for a connector
raod through the Smith/Breeden property to link Brookside with 40th Avenue.
Crest Drive Neighbors and South Hills Neighbors were notified but there was no
response from either group. The issues of concern involved the slope and soil
stability as well as access. On May 5, 1981, the Planning Commission voted 4:1
to recommend approval on the annexation and 5:0 to recommend approval on the
zoning. She noted that Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission President, was
present to answer questions.
Public hearing was opened.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 5
Peter Thompson, 840 Lawrence Street, stated that Ms. Jones had addressed the
e items considered under the Planning Commission requirements. The adjoining
property owned by the Rexius family was annexed and there was concern regarding
the future annexation to the north due to the soil stability. Walter Youngquist,
a geologist who owns property to the west, has appraised the soils and the
topography and proved that it will support a road from the Rexius property to
join 40th Avenue. This would be a link between Brookside and 40th which
will serve much of the traffic generated by the Rexius annexation. This meets
Eugene and LCDC requirements. He indicated that he could answer questions if
necessary.
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
Mr. Lindberg asked if there is any chance the proposed road would not go through,
and if it did not, what would happen. Ms. Jones stated the only way this could
happen would be if the owners did not want a road, but Mr. Thompson has indicated
that they do want this road, although they have not yet determined the exact
locat ion.
Ms. Schue asked if the City could require a road. Ms. Jones responded that they
co u 1 d . Mr. Thompson stated that Smi th and Breeden want the road to both meet
City standards and to help relieve traffic problems. Mr. Lindberg asked if
there would be any question if the council asked for a guarantee. Mr. Gleason
stated that that needs to be referred to the Hearings Official during the PUD
process. Then if they want to develop, they must have the road. Ms. Miller
asked if the council could ask the Hearings Official to consider whether child-
ren would have a level place to play somewhere other than in the streets. Jim
e Croteau, Planning, said that staff would work on this.
Res. No. 3538--A resolution forwarding a recommendation to the Boundary
Commission for annexation of property located south of 40th
Avenue, west of Brae Burn Drive, to the City of Eugene and
Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting
the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and
minutes of May 5, 1981, be adopted by reference thereto; and
that the resolution be adopted.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
CB 2329--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County RR Rural Residen-
tial District to City R-1/PD Low-Density Residential District
with Planned Unit Development procedures for property located
south of 40th Avenue, west of Brae Burn Drive. .
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting
the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes
and minutes of May 5, 1981, 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.
e Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 6
e Council Bill 2329 was read the second time by council bill number
on 1 y.
Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill
was declared passed and numbered 18827.
C. Appeal of the Eugene Sign Code Board of Appeals Decision to deny
a Sign Code variance request of the Pacific Cascade Corporation,
representing the Delta Oaks Shopping Center (memo and additional
information distributed)
Mr. Gleason introduced Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent of Building Inspection,
and Barbara McDonald, Sign Inspector.
Mr. Reed stated that the Sign Code states that an applicant seeking a variance,
having been denied by the Sign Code Board, has the right of further appeal to
the City Council regarding variances. Pacific Cascade Corporation, representing
Delta Oaks Shopping Center, has filed this appeal for property at the northeast
corner of Beltline and Delta. Section 8.635(b)(2) of the Sign Code states
that additional signing will not be allowed on other than front walls if such
walls are within 1,200 feet of residentially zoned property. This is a request
for relief from the sign standards. This is an integrated shopping district
with each building having one wall sign per business on the front wall. In
addition, the shopping center as a whole may have one overall identity sign
which can be freestanding or roof-mounted. This sign could be oriented to be
e seen from Beltline Road. If rear walls are at least 1,200 feet from residential-
ly zoned area, then additional signing will be permitted. This site is separat-
ed from residentially zoned land by only 500 feet and the rear wall signs would
be visible. Representatives of GI Joe's, Jafco, and Handyman are requesting
these variances. A similar request was denied for the Fred Meyer Shopping
Center. The board denial of this case was based on: 1) 1,200 feet separation
between residential and shopping center could not be maintained; 2) although
Beltline passed between the signs and residences, this is not determined to be a
mitigating circumstance as defined by the sign code; 3) no extraordinary circum-
stances are involved; 4) granting the variance would be a special privilege,
similar to billboards; and 5) there is no real hardship since a freestanding
sign could be located near Beltline, to help shoppers locate the shopping
center.
Notices were sent out and they received a letter from Mr. Vik of 2123 Brookhaven
who approves of the request and is a nearby property owner.
Public hearing was opened.
Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, stated that he is appealing for Pacific Cascade Corpora-
tion and that Jack Martin, General Manager, is also in attendance. The council
received a written statement to support this appeal and to provide a basis for
the appeal. Two determinations must be made by the City Council: 1) whether a
"practical difficulty" exists as the term is defined in the Eugene Code; and
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 7
~.._---
2) whether approval of the appeal would have an adverse impact on adjacent,
e residentially zoned property. Section 8.800 defines practical difficulty as
follows: "A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result
from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the locations of existing
structures thereon, from geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions
on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from population densities, street
locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity." Pac ifi c Cascade
Corporation believes there is a legitimate practical difficulty since there is a
substantial grove of trees located on the west portion of the site and the City
has previously determined that tree preservation is important in the site
review process. The corporation studied many site designs in developing this
shopping center on this property. The current site design allows maximum
preservation of existing vegetation by the creation of a U-shaped building
configuration with the main tree masts located centrally between the buildings.
This was the only configuration that provided sufficient parking adjacent to
each business and still allowed preservation of a significant amount of vegeta-
tion on the site. Preservation of the trees has resulted in the building being
oriented with the rear or side building walls facing the exterior property
boundary. If secondary identity signs are not permitted on rear or side walls,
it will be impossible for people traveling on Beltline or Delta to identify the
businesses in the Delta Oaks Shopping Center. The only access to the Delta Oaks
Shopping Center is provided by Green Acres Road, but most customers will arrive
by means of either Delta Highway or Beltline Road. This would make it extremely
difficult if not, impossible for the public to identify the major stores within
this shopping center. The corporation believes that the difficulty stems from
the existing physical conditions on the site and is magnified by street locations
in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Saul stated that the corporation believes the
e council should consider the fact that the proposed Jafco Store is located
immediately east of Delta Highway, south of Greenacres Road. The area south of
this interchange is residentially zoned but since it is part of the gravel pond
owned by Lane County it would never be developed for residential use. Therefore,
no secondary wall sign would have an adverse impact upon that area. The Handyman
Store located immediately south of Greenacres Road is the closest to residential-
ly zoned property, being approximately 950 feet away. It is, however, screened
by existing trees from the residentially zoned property to the south. The GI
Joe's Store would be separated from residentially zoned property by approximately
400 feet but the effect of secondary wall signing for this structure is mitigated
or eliminated since: the proposed sign would be a deep blue color restricting
glare and color transmission. The GI Joe's Store sign is located north of the
eastern portion of the Delta-Beltline interchange, is illuminated with overhead
high-intensity lights and has a far greater illumination than what would be
produced by secondary wall signing. Mr. Saul further stated that Pacific
Cascade Corporation is willing to limit the size of these secondary wall signs
to one-half the maximum area permitted, or to lesser amounts if the council
deems that necessary.
Don Cole, Cal Young Neighborhood Association, said that they have no adverse
objectlon to this secondary signing. This would meet the criteria of the City
Code and the relief is necessary and reasonable. They would accept any necessary
size limitations but this is a question of identity as noted in Eugene Code
8.625. He distributed photos of the site to the councilors.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 8
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
e Ms. Smith stated that she would abstain since Mr. Saul is a partner in her
husband's business.
Ms. Schue stated that she would like more information from staff to see if
there are other places with comparable signing situations. Mr. Reed stated that
Valley River Center, Fred Meyer, 27th and Willamette, and Echo Hollow would be
similar. Trees are desirable features that are not an obstacle to locating the
shopping center. Staff felt that signing should not be permitted that close to
residentially zoned property and staff did not see the situation as unique. Ms.
Schue asked if staff thinks that the freeway makes it a unique situation. Mr.
Reed stated no, that they felt it was just a major arterial.
Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Saul if there are examples of comparable projects. Mr. Saul
stated that if the sign were required to be removed on Willamette, it would have
to be because of size limitations, not because of the location. He noted that
he had previously discussed the fact that the site is distinguished from
others because it has access from only one local street. Preservation of trees
is not discretionary, it is required by the City and the site review process.
The developer was told he would have to comply and that does not exist with any
other center. Ms. Schue stated that the building in question on Willamette
faces 27th and was near Willamette. Ms. Wooten asked for additional information
to be shown to her on the map and Mr. Saul complied.
Mayor Keller asked Mr. Saul if he would like to provide a rebuttal, but Mr. Saul
declined.
e Ms. Miller stated that council has been hearing a lot about differences without
there being any. In these circumstances, site review dictates that signing will
be less than ideal but she does not think it will keep people from finding the
shopping center.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to deny the appeal.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1 with Councilor Hamel voting no
and Councilor Smith abstaining.
D. Public Works Bid Awards (memo distributed, tabulations attached)
Mr. Gleason introduced Bert Teitzel, Public Works.
Mr. Teitzel stated that most of these are petition-initiated except the Crescent
Avenue, which is council-initiated. The Crescent Avenue project has a remon-
strance against it.
Public hearing was opened.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 9
---.-
James Hooker, 24220 Wolf Creek Road, Veneta, stated that in regard to project
1/12, thlS proJect was lnltlated by petltlon of property owners and he would
e like to know who initiated it. He would like to know how many are involved in
this project and what his costs will be. Mr. Teitzel responded that the project
was initiated by a major property owner southeast of Hooker's property. There
is 100 percent of street paving frontage which will be paid by the subdivider,
and 86.5 percent of the sewers will be paid. Mr. Hooker will have approximately
$3,500 to pay for the storm sewer to replace the ditch. Mr. Hooker asked if
that would be the total cost for a ditch that does not have water in it. Mr.
Teitzel responded that he would pay only for his portion. Mr. Hooker stated
that the storm sewer goes through the property behind his and he pays from one
edge of his property to the other. Mr. Teitzel stated that the storm sewer was
initiated by the total project and Mr. Hooker1s property was in the middle. Mr.
Hooker asked if there would be more of the project to the west. Mr. Teitzel
stated that there would and it would be complete to Calvin. Mr. Hooker stated
that the driveway on one side is his and to the north it belongs to someone else
and asked if those people would have to pay. Mr. Teitzel stated that they would
be assessed to the portion that goes adjacent to their property. Mr. Hooker
asked if it would be $7,000 for that amount. Mr. Teitzel -stated that it would
be over 1,300 feet total and he would be assessed for 96 feet. Mr. Hooker asked
if it would cost $3,500 for 96 feet. Mr. Teitzel stated that the costs would be
for 96 feet of pipe at $23.35 per foot and one-half of the manhole for $850 plus
engineering and financing fees. Mr. Hooker asked if this is stacked. Mr.
Teitzel said that if it is not, he should call the office and staff will see
that it is stacked.
Ms. Smith expressed concern that Mr. Hooker had not been given the answers prior
e to the public hearing.
Ms. Wooten stated that she did not understand what Mr. Hooker was being assessed
for and asked how much the total cost is including one-half of a manhole. Mr.
Teitzel stated that it will be about $3,500.
A break was called to allow Mr. Teitzel to speak with Mr. Hooker.
Mr. Haws left the meeting.
Mr. Teitzel stated that this item has been explained to Mr. Hooker and he
understands it but he does not agree with what is being done.
There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed.
Ms. Wooten stated that during the Mayor's absence, there was a briefing session
about assessments which she was not able to attend. She indicated that she
would not vote on this or similar projects until she had a better understanding.
Mr. Obie noted that he is somewhat uncomfortable with the existing process but
will go along with City policy until it is changed. Ms. Smith stated she would
urge the council to approve these projects until policies may be changed. Ms.
Miller stated that what has happened to Mr. Hooker has happened to others.
Urban development is occurring. People who previously lived in the country are
now living in the city. Such improvements must occur as Eugene grows.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 10
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to award the contracts to
the low bidders in all cases.
e Mr. Lindberg stated that there is a remonstrance against one of the projects.
At the June 11 council meeting some concerns were expressed. He asked if a
resolution had been developed that satisfied those who were against the improve-
ments earlier. Mr. Teitzel stated that the property owners were satisfied with
the attempt to increase the amount of street parking and to monitor traffic and
proposed through-truck restrictions in the future if necessary. The project was
authorized and council should continue to be supportive to provide for the
safety of cyclists, joggers, and pedestrians, and to accommodate increasing
traffic volumes.
Mr. Gleason interjected that the council needs a two-thirds vote to pass a
motion with a remonstrance attached.
Mr. Lindberg stated that he respects Councilor Wooten's decision regarding
abstension until she receives more clarification on the policies, but he feels
comfortable voting with the existing policies while remaining hopeful for
possible change.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstain-
ing.
Mr. Gleason indicated that staff would provide additional briefings in the
future and council can then take action to attempt to change the policies and
staff will work with them.
e
II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING
A. Approval of Assessment Panel Minutes of June 29, 1981 (memo and
minutes distributed)
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to approve the Assessment
Panel minutes of June 29, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
B. Levying of Assessments
Mr. Gleason stated that these councils bills were read the first time on June 8,
1981, and referred to the June 15, 1981, Hearings Panel. They were held over
and referred back to the June 29, 1981, Hearings Panel and are being brought
back for council consideration. He introduced Bert Teitzel, Public Works.
Mr. Teitzel that Council Bill 2311 received no recommendation from the Hearings
Panel but staff recommends approval. Regarding Council Bill 2318, staff met
with the owners and their attorney. Staff stands on the recommendation to
assess as outlined in the staff memo. The council may have received a letter of
July 13, 1981, from Bruce Smith who represents the owners.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 11
Ms. Wooten stated that she agrees with the staff recommendation regarding
Daneland Mobile Home Park but questions the sanitary sewer between Jefferson and
Cheshire. Those two parcels of property that are privately owned and are hooked
- up to a sewer that has served their needs for 30 years. They have neither need
nor intention to hook to any other system. She believes that it is fair to levy
assessments, but it should be to existing lines, not to lines that will not
serve them. This could be changed when the property is sold. One owner is
feeling victimized. The State owns more than two thirds of the surrounding
property. She will vote against that council bill and hopes that Public Works
would design an appropriate assessment. Mr. Lindberg indicated that he spoke to
and read a letter from Mr. Smith regarding the possibility of the City Attorney
having further discussion if this was to be held over. He would like to do
that.
Mr. Gleason stated that based on Ms. Wooten's suggestion, they could assign
the Bancroft of the lien and then defer the payment. This would not obligate
the current owner. The only cost to the City would be the interest earnings.
Mr. Obie stated there have been difficulties like this in the past. There is a
policy and he does not want to adjust the policy for each individual project.
Rather, the entire policy ought to be reviewed and changed if that is the
council's desire. There should be consistency in application of the policy so
as not to receive criticism. He feels council should move ahead on this item.
Mayor Keller noted agreement with Mr. Obie. There are consistency problems when
deviating from the policies. If policies are not acceptable, they should be
changed. The only time the council has failed the best interest of the commun-
ity has been when projects have been put off. There has never been a cost
reduction and everyone has to pay some time. The assessment policy has high
priority for the council. He hopes there will be no delay in the assessment
e process unless there has been a staff error. He feels that this has been a
reasonable process and policy. Ms. Schue indicated agreement with Mayor Keller.
There have been other situations that are similar. No one has been able to come
up with a better policy and she will support the present policy until a better
one is developed.
Mr. Hamel stated that Mr. Troyanek had said he could obtain the money if he had
to. He does not see the harm in having him pay for the improvements. Mr.
Lindberg noted agreement. Council should remain consistent with the policies
but he would like clarification as to whether they are being consistent. He
feels the sanitary sewer on Cheshire and Jefferson, according to what Ms. Wooten
has stated, is somewhat in violation of current policies. Ms. Wooten stated
that for 30 years, Mr. Troyanek has not paid for being hooked up to a sewer
system. He should pay for the system he has used but not for the one requested
by the State of Oregon to which he will never be connected. She does not feel
that would be consistent.
Mr. Lindberg stated he would appreciate a reiteration by staff as to why the
second assessment was consistent with the benefit to an individual owner. ~.
Gleason stated that the City does not assess on trunk line connections. Lateral
connections are charged. If they are not assessed now, they will be later. One
could say this person has had the benefit of using a system for 30 years at no
charge. When infilling occurs, it is a difficult situation.
e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 12
e Mr. Lindberg stated that earlier it was said that for the improvement north of
Royal Avenue, they were not required to charge for the first 24 inches of pipe
and after 60 inches of pipe. He would prefer to have justification for why this
should not be held over. Mr. Gleason stated that it is in the City's best
interest to use open ditches, but it is a benefit to the property owner to have
enclosed ditches to allow more flexibility in the use of their property. Ms.
Wooten stated that in regard to the Daneland Mobile Home Park, it is unfortunate
because of miscommunication and differences of opinion. She thinks Public Works
would agree. Given all of this misunderstanding, she feels council should
proceed. To be consistent, she will abstain until she gets a clearer understanding.
CB 2311--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer to serve
properties on Jefferson Street between Cheshire Avenue and River
Street (80-19).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved
and given final passage.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
The bill was declared passed and number 18828.
CB 2318--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer 1,650 north of
Royal Avenue from Terry Street to 900 feet east (80-58).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved
and given final passage.
e Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
The bill was declared passed and number 18829.
The following council bill was read the first time June 8, 1981; referred to
the June 15, 1981, and then June 29, 1981, Hearings Panel; and is being held
over and referred to the July 20, 1981, Hearings Panel with panel recommendations
to be brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
CB 2317--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer north of Cal
Young Road from Fir Acres Road to 450 feet northwest (within and
adjacent to proposed Craviotto-Stratton Subdivision) (80-57).
III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING--LEVYING ASSESSMENTS
CB 2330--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and
storm sewer to serve Flatbush Second Addition; and paving Terry
Street from Roosevelt Avenue to 300 feet south; and bridge over
A-3 channel at Terry Street (80-21).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the
first time by council bill number only and referred to a Hearings
Panel to be held July 20, 1981, with panel recommendations to be
brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
e Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 13
CB 2331--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and
storm sewer within and adjacent to Birdnest Subdivision; and
e sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the east and west boundaries of
Birdnest Subdivision (80-33).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the
first time by council bill number only and referred to a Hearings
Panel to be held July 20, 1981, with panel recommendations to be
brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
CB 2332--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and
storm sewer within Okita Subdivision and sanitary sewer within
160 feet of the east boundary of Okita Subdivision (80-39).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the
first time by council bill number only and referred to a Hearings
Panel to be held July 20, 1981, with panel recommendations to be
brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
CB 2333--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and
storm sewer within and ajacent to Laura's Subdivision (80-41).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the
e first time by council bill number only and referred to a Hearings
Panel to be held July 20, 1981, with panel recommendations to be
brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
CB 2334--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and
storm sewer within and adjacent to Raindrop Ridge Subdivision
(80-42).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the
first time by council bill number only and referred to a Hearings
Panel to be held July 20, 1981, with panel recommendations to be
brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
CB 2335--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and
storm sewer within Sweetbriar Second Addition; and sanitary sewer
to serve area within 160 feet of the north, south, and east
boundaries of Sweetbriar.Second Addition (80-43).
~
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 14
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the
e first time by council bill number only and referred to a Hearings
Panel to be held July 20, 1981, with panel recommendations to be
brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
CB 2336--An ordinance levying assessments for storm sewer within Cal Young
Road and Sharon Way from Woodside Drive to 810 feet east (80-63).
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the
first time by council bill number only and referred to a Hearings
Panel to be held July 20, 1981, with panel recommendations to be
brought back for council consideration on July 27, 1981.
Roll call vote; motion carried 6:0 with Councilor Wooten abstaining.
IV. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS ,-
Res. No. 3539--A resolution authorizing payment of bills, claims, and
progress payments for the period June 22, 1981, through
July 13, 1981.
Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution.
Ms. Wooten asked about the payment for Ward Insurance Agency and whether it
e is part of the City's insurance premium. Mr. Gleason explained that this is
part of a stop-loss coverage program. Ms. Wooten also asked about the Stein
payment for $7,500 and what had occurred. Les Swanson, City Attorney, stated
that a suit had been filed against the City and this was settled out of court.
Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned to July 15, 1981.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Mic eal D. Gle on ....
City Manager
(Recorded by Lynda Nelson)
LN:al/CM8bl
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 13, 1981 Page 15
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
<. .
. Engineering Division
BlOND.: 4
e Opened: July 7, 1981
l. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND SIDEWALK on Bailey Hill Road from Warren Street
to Bertelsen Road and sanitary sewer in Four Oaks Grange Road from Bailey
Hill to approximately 500 feet north (Job No. 1576)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
1. Eugene Sand & Gravel ------------------ $296,717.36 $ 0
2. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $303,697.57 $299,530.26
3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $324,303.95 $ 0
4. H & J Construction Co. ---------------- $333,167.05 $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
20-Foot Paving $24. 35/FF $ 17,000 $ 84,700 (331)
28-Foot Paving $29.30/FF $170,300 County
36-Foot Paving $35.20/FF Cost to County
5 -Foot Sidewalk $ 7.10/FF
5 -inch Cone. Drive $ 1. 95/Sq. Ft. $165,500
7 -inch Cone. Drive $ 2. 25/ Sq . Ft .
A. C. Dr. $ 0.85/Sq. Ft.
San. Lat. $ 0.20/Sq. Ft.
San. Servo $460.0D/Each
e COMPLETION DATE: October 31", 1981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND SIDEWALK within and adjacent to Chippendale Sub-
division; and storm sewer 650 feet north of Harlow Road from Arcadia Drive
to Calvin Street; and storm sewer 1450 feet north of Harlow Road from Arcadia
Drive to 300 feet east (Job No. 1712)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $233,037.52 $ 0
2. H & J Construction Co. ---------------- $235,250.19 $ 0
3. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. --- $248,982.34 $ 0
4. Eugene Sand & Gravel ~----------------- $253,369.25 $ 0
5. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. -------- $260,170.26 $ 0
6. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $264,854.00 $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28-Foot Paving $26.20/FF $16,700 -0-
San. Lat. $ D.10/Sq. Ft.
San. Servo $175.00/Each
Storm Sewer $ O.ll/Sq. Ft.
-- Pedway $35.60/Lot
Storm Sewer Direct $27,400.00
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1981 Page 1 of 4
--
BID NO.: 4
Opened: July 7, 1981
e 3. PAVING AND SIDEWALK on Crescent Avenue from Gilham Road to Coburg Road C-
(Job No. 1835)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Wildish Construction Co. --------------, $349,643.65 $359,224.13
2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $360,253.20 $ 0
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel ------------------ $371 ,100. 18 $ 0
4. H & J Construction Co. ---------------- $375,378.20 $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
20-Foot Paving $23.40/FF $17,000 $ 17,000 (331)
26-Foot Paving $28.50/FF $189,800 (County)
36-Foot Paving $35.60/FF Cos t to County
4-Inch Sidewalk $ 9.15/FF
5-Inch Cone. Drive $ 1.95/Sq. Ft. $168,000
2-Inch A. C. Drive $ o. 80/Sq. Ft.
e COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1981
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<:,
4. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER on Terry Street within Maywood Subdivision
(Job No. 1924)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
l. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $230,811 .13 $ 0
2. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc. -------- $272,271.59 $ 0
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel ------------------ $306,263.53 $ 0
4. Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Co. --- $318,338.78 $ 0
5. H & J Construction Co. ---------------- $331,163.10 $ 0
6. . Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. u_______ $335,715.90 $ 0
7. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co. -------------- $341,627.55 $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
28-Foot Paving $26.00/FF $121 ,000 $143,200 (332)
36-Foot Paving $30.20/FF
San. Lat. $ O.19/Sq. Ft.
Storm Sewer $39,500.00
e \._-
COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1981 Page 2 of 4
. "-r ,. ~
. ,.
.
..
BID NO.: 4
Opened: July 7, 1981
. 5. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND SIDEWALK on Bailey Hill Road from 5th Avenue to
11 th Avenue (JOb No. 1795)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
1. Wildish Construction Co. -------------- $177,796.03 $ 0
2. H & J Construction Co. ---------------- $186,617 . 55 $ 0
3. Eugene Sand & Gravel ------------------ $187,020.68 $ 0
4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $187,227.10 $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
20-Foot Paving $24.10/FF $ 7,600 $33,500 (331)
44-Foot Paving $48.65/FF $36,500 County
San. Lat. $ 0.06jSq. Ft. Cost to County
San. Serv. $340.00/Each
4-lnch Sidewalk $ 8.35jFF $76,300
5-lnch Cone. Drive $ 1.85/Sq. Ft.
7-Inch Cone. Drive $ 2.25/Sq. Ft.
Cm1PLETlON DATE: October 15, 1981
4It ------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----~---
6. PAVING on 5th Avenue from Seneca to Bailey Hill Road (Job No. 577)
Contract Cost
Bidders Basic Alternate
1. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $139,030.80 S 0
2. Eugene Sand & Gravel ------------------ $144,649.80 $ 0
3. Wi1dish Construction Co. -------------- $ 0 $147,335.43
4. Egge's Sand & Gravel ------------------ $147,649.80 $ 0
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
44-Foot Paving $46.70/FF $86,000 $91,000 (332)
e
COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1981 Page 3 of 4
BID NO.: 4
Opened: July 7, 1981
e 7. GUARD RAIL on Birch Lane (Job No. 1945) C
Bidders Contract Cost
l. Berg & Stubbert ----------------------~ $15,488.80
2. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc. --------- $25,132.00
Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted
$18,000 $22,000 (311)
COMPLETION DATE: September 1,1981
e C-
,
e' . I
Page 4 of 4