CC Minutes - 02/20/07 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling referred to page 327 of the meeting packet, which contained the draft ordinance, specifically subsection (g), Commercial and Industrial Noise. He asked if that subsection exempted the commercial application of such equipment in commercial and industrial areas such as shopping centers. Mike McKerrow of the Land Use Management Section explained the subsection in question would not provide an exemption; the subsection was intended to protect residential properties from any type of activity on commercial and industrial properties that created noise exceeding 60 decibels. He clarified that the text related to the one-hour equivalent was different in that it intended to average the sound received from the receiving property line. Mr. Poling asked that text be prepared for a motion that that created an exemption for the application of street sweepers and blowers in commercial and industrial areas during the proposed hours given the difficulty of accessing large parking lots during regular business hours. Ms. Ortiz suggested the ordinance may also impact City operations given that street sweepers operated at night. She questioned whether technology existed to further muffle such equipment. She thought such technology should be an obtainable goal but she did not want to limit people’s ability to work. She thought it would be beneficial if residents were willing to pay for manual labor but she did not think they were, particularly when they had big yards. Ms. Ortiz felt the yet-to-be formed Sustainability Commission should examine the issue and make a recommendation to the council. She thought the jobs provided by the sweeping industry were important and believed the actual issue before the council was how to maintain community livability. In response to Ms. Ortiz’s comments, Ms. Solomon pointed to the section exempting City, County, and State employees, and their contractors. She thought it was unfair for the City to be exempted from the provisions of the proposed ordinance. She thanked Mr. Dodson for his comment about the fact the City’s parking lot design standards were contributing to the problem. She pointed out that the trees now required for such lots drop leaves, which needed to be picked up. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution 4900 Adopting Amended System Development Charge Methodology for Parks System; Affirming Systems Development Charge Methodologies Adopted by Resolution Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883; and Repealing Resolution Nos. 4740, 4748, 4767, 4768, 4770, 4794, 4795, 4827, 4875, 4876, and 4883 Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing. Roxie Cuellar , 2053 Laura Street, representing the Home Builders Association of Lane County and Homebuilders Construction Company, recalled her written submittal prior to the first hearing on the topic in January 2007. She thanked council for considering her comments about the need for adjustments to the neighborhood acquisition ratios and hoped they would be incorporated into the methodology. Ms. Cuellar said she worked on the State systems development charge (SDC) statute over several legislative sessions. The State statute was a collaborative effort between the League of Oregon Cities, Oregon counties, special districts, some municipalities, and the Oregon Home Builders Association. The original statute was submitted by those groups together and every amendment to the statute had been done cooperatively between them. The intent of the SDC statute was that new construction would be charged for the increased demand that a new structure would place on public infrastructure, in this case, parks. To the extent new construction would cause additional use of a park, the SDC was appropriate. Ms. Cueller said MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 20, 2007 Page 7 Public Hearing