Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

see that would give any guidance on how to actually solve the problem (\vhich~ if we'.re being frank here, means "who's .gonn~pay for it"). I think my concern is not unfounded. For instance, tIle city allowed the lot vvhere the Cornucopia restaurant sits -- 295 W. 17th -- to be rezoned frolll R-l to C-l -- about six years ago. I am not sure ifth.at required a site review, but in any case the infrastructure issues\vere apparently not exanlined because the restaurant vvas on a community se\ver lin.e -- and still is. A ne,,! restaurant on a decades-old comlnunity sewer line! That line has proved inadequate. It bubbles up into a neighbor's yard. Cornucopia's o\vners are no\v involved in a dispute Vvrith another neighbor who refuses to grant an easement so they can build a new line. Without the easement, they have NO ACCESS to city se\ver service! Given the city's interest in mai11taining th.e peace and facilitating orderly de'lelopment, it would seem \vise that, in conjunction with any planning and zoning ch.anges in this area, the city needs to do som,ething about this -- perhaps 1) upgrade all of the sewers to support intensifyin.g development; or, at least, 2) adopt an ordinance or some planning regulation that spells out who pays for piecemeal sewer uIJgrades. Such an ordinance sllould state that the party initiating the construction - or perhaps it could be defined as any party that is increasing the number of housing units on any given lot, or any party asking to "upzone" a lot to R-2 - mustpa)t 'the entire cost of all the se\\'er work, it1cluding costs to reconnect any neighbors (hereinafter "itlnocellt bystanders") who are required to have new lines because the old ones would be' disturbed by the construction. Or perhaps the city should pay this cost. Or tIle developer and the city share the cost, the planning documents intcl1ded to guide cit~y policy that are cited by !\1.r. N:ystrOlTI do talk about using "public and private investment" I just h.ope that the innocent bystanders would not have to fork over any of tllis private illvestlnent. In fact the purpose of suc.h a rule or ordillance should be to protect the innocent bystanders fronl incurrillg significant and sudden expenses througll no action.oftheir own. Oth.er\vise, it seen1S likely such neighbors will.sim.ply not cooperate and bring everything to a standstilL As I understand it, they have that power as these old.sewer lines may not be disturbed by one party alone. Anyway, this would defeat 'the vvhole purpose or maybe require the hiring of lawyers. In short, I believe this is a significant infrastructure problem. If the city is going to allo\v and e\len encourage intensified development and greater density in this area, I ask t11at tile Planning Conlmission and the City Council acknovvledge the existing sewer illadequacies and act to avoid COl1flic~s right froIn tIle start. Barring.tllat, I think the city has no business encoura.ging higher density \vh.en many lots in this neighborhood lack adequate access to something as fundatne11tal as a city se\ver hookup. l"'hank yotL Bob Passaro 395 'J.l..17t11Ave. Eugene, OR 97401 111-3<5