08/09/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Committee was unclear and that she was uncertain whether the committee's recommendations were merely advisory or were meant to be binding. She said that 4-J still has not notified Eugene neighborhood associations of proposed uses in the schools. She urged the council to take measures to assure adequate public involvement and information in the future. She said if this cannot be done through other means, then the conditional use permit process should be applied to the properties in question. Gordon Elliott, 938 Jefferson Street, supported the ordinance, since it would maximize the school district's investment and would allow organizations using the properties to locate in town. He felt that a wide range of tenants should be allowed in surplus school buildings, including commercial uses. Those speaking in opposition to the ordinance: Michael Wells, 777 High Street, Suite 200, said he was an attorney representing more than 20 residents of the Laurel Hill area. He submitted a partial list of the names and addresses of people whom he represented. He referred to Section 9.402 (d) (8) of the proposed ordinance and said that, if passed, it would allow psychiatric outpatient facilities to locate in residential neighborhoods without opportunity for citizen review or for the setting of operational standards. He said that under the ordinance, the setting of standards for making decisions on use of school properties was left entirely to the school district. He recognized that the August 3 Planning Commission hearing and tonight's council hearing were not intended to deal with the specific issue of use of the Laurel Hill School building by Community Services of Lane County but noted that these hearings were e the only opportunities residents had to comment on the issue. Mr. Wells argued that a decision on this ordinance was a quasi-judicial rather than a legislative decision, since passage of the ordinance would have the effect of rezoning the Laurel Hill School property for use by CSLC, whose lease of the property was ready to go into effect when the ordinance was passed. He said that the ordinance had the effect of delegating the City's responsibility for land use decisions to School District 4-J. He said that the district's record of failing to provide for adequate public input into such decisions did not warrant delegation of such responsibility. Mr. Wells urged that the uses identified in Section 9.402 (d) (8) be made conditional uses. Durward Boyles, 3415 Baldy View Lane, said that he did not live in the Laurel Hill Valley and, therefore, spoke as a disinterested party. He said that, in the past, he had rented property he owned to Lane County Youth Care Centers for use as a group home. He said he was assured by the agency that residents of the home would not cause problems in the neighborhood. He said that Lane County had approved the conditional use permit needed as a matter of expediency, despite opposition and expressions of anger from neighbors of the property, similar to that expressed by residents of the Laurel Hill Valley. He said that during the time the agency leased his property, neighbors had only minor problems with residents of the center, but he said that one resident of the center later committed a murder. He said that his neighbors still felt anger about his agreeing to lease to the center and that he regretted ever making that decision. He urged the council to oppose any ordinance that would force residents to accept a radical change of use of land in their neighborhood and to avoid giving - 4-J responsibility for making land use decisions in which it has a vested interest. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 4