Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Agenda Packet
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA January 17, 2017 7:30 p.m. #)49 #/5.#), MEETING ( ±±¨² ( «« ΐΑΔ % ²³ Η Avenue th %´¦¤¤Ǿ /±¤¦® ΘΖΓΏΐ -¤¤³¨¦ ®¥ * ´ ±¸ ΐΖǾ ΑΏΐΖǿ (¤± (®®± - ¸®± ,´¢¸ 6¨¨² 0±¤²¨£¨¦ Councilors !« ZelenkaǾ 0±¤²¨£¤³-¨ª¤ #« ±ªǾ 6¨¢¤ 0±¤²¨£¤³ '¤®±¦¤ 0®«¨¦ '±¤¦ %µ ² %¬¨«¸ 3¤¬¯«¤#§±¨² 0±¸®± #« ¨±¤ 3¸±¤³³ "¤³³¸ 4 ¸«®± 7:30 p.m. #)49 #/5.#), MEETING ( ±±¨² ( ««Ǿ ΐΑΔ % ²³ ΗAvenue th 1.05",)# (%!2).': ! 2¤²®«´³¨® '± ³¨¦ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ #« ¨¬ £ 7 ¨µ¨¦ 0±®µ¨²¨® ®¥ #§ ¯³¤± Θ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐ ¥®± 0±®¯¤±³¸ ,®¢ ³¤£ ³ ΐΖΖΖ %ȁ ΒΏ³§ !µ¤´¤Ǿ %´¦¤¤Ǿ /±¤¦® Ȩ!²²¤²²®±Ȍ² - ¯ ΐΗ-03-08-ΐΐǾ 4 · ,®³ ΕΏΑȩ Manager: )³±®£´¢¤² ³®¯¨¢Ǿ ¯±¤²¤³² ¡ ¢ª¦±®´£ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨®ȁ - ¸®± ®¯¤² ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦Ȁ 4§®²¤ ¶¨²§¨¦ ³® ²¯¤ ª £´±¨¦ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦ ¬´²³ ²´¡¬¨³ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ ȏ2¤°´¤²³ ³® 3¯¤ ªȐ ¥®±¬ ³® ³§¤ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨® £¤²ªǾ ¯±¨®± ³® ³§¤ ¡¤¦¨¨¦ ®¥ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦ȁ 7§¤ ¸®´ ¢®¬¤ ³® ³§¤ ¯®£¨´¬Ǿ ¯«¤ ²¤ ¦¨µ¤ ¸®´± ¬¤Ǿ ¢¨³¸ ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤Ǿ £Ǿ ¥®± Eugen¤ ±¤²¨£¤³²Ǿ ¸®´± ¶ ±£ ¨¥ ª®¶ǿ ¸®´ ¶¨«« § µ¤ ³§±¤¤ ¬¨´³¤² ³® ¢®¬¬¤³ȁ 4§¤±¤ ±¤ «¨¦§³² ® ³§¤ ³¨¬¤±ǿ ³§¤ ±¤£ «¨¦§³ ¨£¨¢ ³¤² ³§¤ ¤£ ®¥ ³§±¤¤ ¬¨´³¤²ȁ Mayor: #«®²¤² ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ȁ 2.05",)# (%!2).': ! /±£¨ ¢¤ #®¢¤±¨¦ ³§¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ #®£¤ǿ !¬¤£¨¦ 3¤¢³¨®² ΗȁΓΐΔǾ ΗȁΓΑΔ £ ΗȁΓΒΏ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐǾ £ 2¤¯¤ «¨¦ ³§¤ 3´²¤³ $ ³¤ Manager:)³±®£´¢¤² ³®¯¨¢Ǿ ¯±¤²¤³² ¡ ¢ª¦±®´£ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨®ȁ - ¸®± ®¯¤² ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦Ȁ 4§®²¤ ¶¨²§¨¦ ³® ²¯¤ ª £´±¨¦ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦ ¬´²³ ²´¡¬¨³ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ ȏ2¤°´¤²³ ³® 3¯¤ ªȐ ¥®±¬ ³® ³§¤ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨® £¤²ªǾ ¯±¨®± ³® ³§¤ ¡¤¦¨¨¦ ®¥ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦ȁ 7§¤ ¸®´ ¢®¬¤ ³® ³§¤ ¯®£¨´¬Ǿ ¯«¤ ²¤ ¦¨µ¤ ¸®´± ¬¤Ǿ ¢¨³¸ ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤Ǿ £Ǿ ¥®± Eugen¤ ±¤²¨£¤³²Ǿ ¸®´± ¶ ±£ ¨¥ ª®¶ǿ ¸®´ ¶¨«« § µ¤ ³§±¤¤ ¬¨´³¤² ³® ¢®¬¬¤³ȁ 4§¤±¤ ±¤ «¨¦§³² ® ³§¤ ³¨¬¤±ǿ ³§¤ ±¤£ «¨¦§³ ¨£¨¢ ³¤² ³§¤ ¤£ ®¥ ³§±¤¤ ¬¨´³¤²ȁ Mayor: #«®²¤² ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ȁ 3.05",)# (%!2).': ! /±£¨ ¢¤ !««®¶¨¦ .¤¶ 2¤¢±¤ ³¨® « - ±¨©´ & ¢¨«¨³¸ ³® ,®¢ ³¤ ,¤²² 4§ ΐΏΏΏ ¥¤¤³ ¥±®¬ ,®®ª¨¦ '« ²² .¤¶ 2® £² 3¢§®®« Manager: )³±®£´¢¤² ³®¯¨¢Ǿ ¯±¤²¤³² ¡ ¢ª¦±®´£ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨®ȁ - ¸®± ®¯¤² ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦Ȁ 4§®²¤ ¶¨²§¨¦ ³® ²¯¤ ª £´±¨¦ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦ ¬´²³ ²´¡¬¨³ ¢®¬¯«¤³¤£ ȏ2¤°´¤²³ ³® 3¯¤ ªȐ ¥®±¬ ³® ³§¤ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨® £¤²ªǾ ¯±¨®± ³® ³§¤ ¡¤¦¨¨¦ ®¥ ³§¤ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦ȁ 7§¤ ¸®´ ¢®¬¤ ³® ³§¤ ¯®£¨´¬Ǿ ¯«¤ ²¤ ¦¨µ¤ ¸®´± ¬¤Ǿ ¢¨³¸ ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤Ǿ £Ǿ ¥®± Eugen¤ ±¤²¨£¤³²Ǿ ¸®´± ¶ ±£ ¨¥ ª®¶ǿ ¸®´ ¶¨«« § µ¤ ³§±¤¤ ¬¨´³¤² ³® ¢®¬¬¤³ȁ 4§¤±¤ ±¤ «¨¦§³² ® ³§¤ ³¨¬¤±ǿ ³§¤ ±¤£ «¨¦§³ ¨£¨¢ ³¤² ³§¤ ¤£ ®¥ ³§±¤¤ ¬¨´³¤²ȁ Mayor: #«®²¤² ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ȁ Adjourn. 4§¤ %´¦¤¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¶¤«¢®¬¤² ¸®´± ¨³¤±¤²³ ¨ ³§¤²¤ ¦¤£ ¨³¤¬²ȁ 4§¨² ¬¤¤³¨¦ «®¢ ³¨® ¨² ¶§¤¤«¢§ ¨±- ¢¢¤²²¨¡«¤ȁ &®± ³§¤ §¤ ±¨¦ ¨¬¯ ¨±¤£Ǿ ¨³¤±¯±¤³¤± ¢ ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¶¨³§ ΓΗ §®´±²͒ ®³¨¢¤ ¯±¨®± ³® ³§¤ ¬¤¤³¨¦ȁ 3¯ ¨²§-« ¦´ ¦¤ ¨³¤±¯±¤³ ³¨® ¶¨«« «²® ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¶¨³§ ΓΗ §®´±²͒ ®³¨¢¤ȁ 4® ±± ¦¤ ¥®± ³§¤²¤ ²¤±µ¨¢¤²Ǿ ¢®³ ¢³ ³§¤ ±¤¢¤¯³¨®¨²³ ³ ΔΓΐ-682-ΔΏΐΏȁ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¬¤¤³¨¦² ±¤ ³¤«¤¢ ²³ «¨µ¤ ® -¤³±® 4¤«¤µ¨²¨®Ǿ #®¬¢ ²³ ¢§ ¤« ΑΐǾ £ ±¤¡±® £¢ ²³ « ³¤± ¨ ³§¤ ¶¤¤ªȁ %« ¢®²¤©® £¤ « #¨´£ £ £¤ %´¦¤¤ ¦± £¤¢¤ ²´ ¨³¤±Î² ¤ ¤²³®² ²´³®² £¤ « ¦¤£ ȁ %« «´¦ ± £¤ « ±¤´¨ô ³¨¤¤ ¢¢¤²® ¯ ± ²¨«« ² £¤ ±´¤£ ²ȁ 3¤ ¯´¤£¤ ¯±®µ¤¤± ´ ¨³Î±¯±¤³¤ ¯ ± « ² ¯¤±²® ² ¢® £¨²¢ ¯ ¢¨£ £ ´£¨³¨µ ²¨ µ¨² ¢® ΓΗ §®± ² £¤ ³¨¢¨¯ ¢¨ôȁ 4 ¬¡¨Î ²¤ ¯´¤£¤ ¯±®µ¤¤± ¨³¤±¯±¤³ ¢¨ô ¯ ± ¤²¯ 𮫠²¨ µ¨² ¢® ΓΗ §®± ² £¤ ³¨¢¨¯ ¢¨ôȁ 0 ± ±¤²¤±µ ± ¤²³®² ²¤±µ¨¢¨®² «« ¬¤ « ΔΓΐ-682-ΔΏΐΏȁ , ² ±¤´¨®¤² £¤« ¢®²¤©® £¤ « ¢¨´£ £ ²¤ ³± ²¬¨³¤ ¤ µ¨µ® ¯®± -¤³±® 4¤«¤µ¨²¨®Ǿ # « Αΐ £¤ #®¬¢ ²³ ¸ ²® ±¤³± ²¬¨³¨£ ² £´± ³¤ « semana. &®± ¬®±¤ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨®Ǿ ¢®³ ¢³ ³§¤ #®´¢¨« #®®±£¨ ³®± ³541-682-5010, ®± µ¨²¨³ ´² ®«¨¤ ³ www.eugene-or.gov. ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦Ȁ ! 2¤²®«´³¨® '± ³¨¦ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ #« ¨¬ £ 7 ¨µ¨¦ 0±®µ¨²¨® ®¥ #§ ¯³¤± Θ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐ ¥®± 0±®¯¤±³¸ ,®¢ ³¤£ ³ ΐΖΖΖ %ȁ ΒΏ AvenueǾ th %´¦¤¤Ǿ /±¤¦® Ȩ!²²¤²²®±Ȍ² - ¯ 18-03-08-ΐΐǾ 4 · ,®³ ΕΏΑ) -¤¤³¨¦ $ ³¤Ȁ * ´ ±¸ ΐΖǾ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤£ )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 1 $¤¯ ±³¬¤³Ȁ 0« ¨¦ £ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ !«¨²² ( ²¤ www.eugene-or.gov #®³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-5508 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¤ %´¦¤¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¨² ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ³® §®«£ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ ±¤¦ ±£¨¦ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ ¢« ¨¬ ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¡¸ #§ £ £ + ³¨¤ 7¨«²® ¥®± ³§¤ ««¤¦¤£ ±¤£´¢³¨® ¨ ¥ ¨± ¬ ±ª¤³ µ «´¤ ³® ³§¤¨± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «®¢ ³¤£ ³ ΐΖΖΖ %ȁ ΒΏ AvenueǾ %´¦¤¤Ǿ /±¤¦®. ! ¬ ¯ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ¨² ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² th !³³ ¢§¬¤³ !ȁ BACKGROUND % ¢³¤£ ¨ ΑΏΏΖ ³® ¬®£¨¥¸ -¤ ²´±¤ ΒΖǾ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ (¢®£¨¥¨¤£ ² /23 195.300-195.336ȩ ¦¤¤± ««¸ ¦± ³² ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶¤± ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤³¨ ««¸ ¹®¤£ « £ «®¢ ³¤£ ¶¨³§¨ ´±¡ ¦±®¶³§ ¡®´£ ±¸ ³§¤ ±¨¦§³ ³® ¢®¬¯¤² ³¨® ®± ¶ ¨µ¤± ®¥ a ±¤¦´« ³¨® Ȩ ³ ³§¤ ®¯³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ ¦®µ¤±¬¤³ȩ ¨¥ ¥¨µ¤ ²´¡²³ ³¨µ¤ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ±¤ ¬¤³ȁ &¨±²³Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨® ¬´²³ ¢®²³¨³´³¤ ȏ« £ ´²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®Ȑ ² ³§ ³ ³¤±¬ ¨² £¤¥¨¤£ ¡¸ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘȁ 3¤¢®£Ǿ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ¤³¨³¸ ¦ ¨²³ ¶§¨¢§ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ¨² ¬ £¤ must§ µ¤ ¤ ¢³¤£ ³§¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨® ¥³¤± * ´ ±¸ ΐǾ ΑΏΏΖǾ ¡´³ ®³ ¬®±¤ ³§ ¥¨µ¤ ¸¤ ±² ¡¤¥®±¤ ³§¤ £ ³¤ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ¶ ² ¥¨«¤£ȁ 4§¨±£Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨® ¬´²³ ȏ±¤²³±¨¢³ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤³¨ « ´²¤Ȑ ®¥ ±¤²¨£¤³¨ ««¸ ¹®¤£ ¯±¨µ ³¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ &®´±³§Ǿ ³§¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³ ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨® ¬´²³ ¡¤ ³® ¢ ´²¤ ±¤£´¢³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ ¥ ¨± ¬ ±ª¤³ µ «´¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ &¨¥³§Ǿ ³§¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨® ¬´²³ ®³ ¥ «« ¶¨³§¨ ®¤ ®¥ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘȌ² ²¨· exemptions. 4§¨² -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ¢« ¨¬ ²¤¤ª² ¶ ¨µ¤± ®¥ a« £ ´²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®Ǿ £®¯³¤£ ¨ ΑΏΐΓǾ ³§ ³ «¨¬¨³s³§¤ §¤¨¦§³ ®¥ £¤³ ¢§¤£ ²¤¢®£ ±¸ £¶¤««¨¦ ´¨³ ® ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ 4§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶¤± asserts ³§ ³ ³§¤ « £ ´²¤ ±¤¦´« ³¨®Ǿ¶§¨¢§ «¨¬¨³² £ ¯±¤²¢±¨¡¤² ¢¤±³ ¨ ¬¤³§®£ ®¥ ¬¤ ²´±¨¦ ³§¤ §¤¨¦§³ȝ²«®¯¤£ ²¤³¡ ¢ª ®¥ £¤³ ¢§¤£ ²¤¢®£ ±¸ £¶¤««¨¦ ´¨³²Ǿ ±¤²³±¨¢³² ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤³¨ « ´²¤ ®¥ ³§¤¨± ¯±®¯¤±³¸Ǿ ² ¨³ ¯±®§¨¡¨³² ³§¤ ¢®µ¤±²¨® ®¥ ³§¤ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤ ¡´¨«³ ¨ ΑΏΏΓ ¨³® ²¤¢®£ ±¸ £¶¤««¨¦ȁ !² ±¤²´«³Ǿ ³§¤ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ ®¶¤± ²²¤±³² ³§ ³ ³§¨² ±¤¦´« ³¨® ±¤£´¢¤² ³§¤ ¥ ¨± ¬ ±ª¤³ µ «´¤ ®¥ ³§¤¨± ¯±®¯¤±³¸ȁ )¥ ¯¯±®µ¤£Ǿ ¨ «¨¤´ ®¥ ¢®¬¯¤² ³¨®Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¢ £¤¢¨£¤ ³® ¶ ¨µ¤ ³§¤ ¨£¤³¨¥¨¤£ §¤¨¦§³ «¨¬¨³ ±¤¦´« ³¨®² ² ¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ««®¶ ¢« ¨¬ ³² ³® convert³§¤¨± ¤·¨²³¨¦ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤ ³® £¤³ ¢§¤£ ²¤¢®£ ±¸ £¶¤««¨¦ ´¨³ȁ3´¢§ ¶ ¨µ¤± ¶®´«£ ®«¸ ¯¯«¸ ³® ³§¤ ²´¡©¤¢³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ £ ¶®´«£ ®«¸ ¶ ¨µ¤ ³§¤ ¨£¤³¨¥¨¤£ ±¤¦´« ³¨® ³® ³§¤ ¤·³¤³ ¤¢¤²² ±¸ ³® ««®¶ ¥®± ³§¤ ¢®µ¤±²¨®ȁ The¢« ¨¬ ³Ȍ² ²´¡¬¨³³ «² ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¨ ²´¯¯®±³ ®¥ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ±¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² !³³ ¢§¬¤³ "ȁ ! ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ ® ³§¤ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ ¢« ¨¬ ¶ ² ®±¨¦¨ ««¸ ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ¥®± .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΐΓǾ ΑΏΐΕȁ 4§¤ ¬ ³¤±¨ «² ¥®± ³§ ³ §¤ ±¨¦Ǿ ¨¢«´£¨¦ £± ¥³ ±¤²®«´³¨® £ #¨³¸ - ¦¤±Ȍ² ±¤¯®±³ £ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨® ±¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² !³³ ¢§¬¤³ #ȁ $´¤ ³® ¨ £µ¤±³¤³ ®³¨¢¨¦ ¤±±®±Ǿ ³§¤ §¤ ±¨¦ ¶ ² ±¤²¢§¤£´«¤£ for* ´ ±¸ ΐΖǾ ΑΏΐΖȁ P´¡«¨¢ ®³¨¢¤ ¶ ² ¬ ¨«¤£ ΒΏ £ ¸² ¨ £µ ¢¤ ®¥ ³§¤ * ´ ±¸ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦Ǿ ¢®²¨²³¤³ ¶¨³§ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ®¥ ³§¤ ²³ ³´³¤ȁ !«« ¶±¨³³¤ ³¤²³¨¬®¸ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ³§±®´¦§ * ´ ±¸ 10Ǿ ΑΏΐΖ ¨² ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ² !³³ ¢§¬¤³ $ȁ 4§¤ ³³ ¢§¤£ #¨³¸ - ¦¤±Ȍ² ±¤¯®±³ £ recommendat¨® ¨² ® «®¦¤± ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ¦¤±Ȍ² ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨®ȁ 4® ««®¶ ¥®± ¢®²¨£¤± ³¨® ®¥ «« ¶±¨³³¤ ³¤²³¨¬®¸Ǿ ±¤µ¨²¤£ #¨³¸ - ¦¤±Ȍ² ±¤¯®±³ £ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨® ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ¯±¨®± ³® #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¢³¨®ȁ 0´¡«¨¢ ³¤²³¨¬®¸ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ³®-£ ³¤ ± ¨²¤£ ¢®¢¤±² regarding ³§¤ ¯®³¤³¨ « ¥®± ²¤³³¨¦ ¯±¤¢¤£¤³ ³§ ³ ¢®´«£ § µ¤ ¤¦ ³¨µ¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ® ®³§¤± ±¤²¨£¤³¨ « ²³ £ ±£²Ǿ ³§¤ validity ®¥ ³§¤ ¯¯± ¨² «² ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ³Ǿ £ ³§¤ ²°´ ±¤ ¥®®³ ¦¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨¦ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤. ) ±¤¦ ±£² ³® ³§¤ ²°´ ±¤ ¥®®³ ¦¤ ®¥ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨¦ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤Ǿ ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ #®£¤ ±¤°´¨±¤² ³§ ³ ²¤¢®£ ±¸ £¶¤««¨¦² ¡¤ ® ¬®±¤ ³§ ΗΏΏ ²°´ ±¤ ¥¤¤³ ¨ ±¤ ȁ 4¤²³¨¬®¸ ± ¨²¤£ ¢®¢¤±² ³§ ³ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨¦ ±¤²¨£¤¢¤ ¤·¢¤¤£² ΗΏΏ ²°´ ±¤ ¥¤¤³ ¡ ²¤£ ® ¨¥®±¬ ³¨® µ ¨« ¡«¤ ¥±®¬ ¬´«³¨¯«¤ ²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ¨¢«´£¨¦ ³§¤ ¯¯± ¨² « ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ³Ǿ ³§¤ 2¤¦¨® « , £ )¥®±¬ ³¨® $ ³ ¡ ²¤ ®¥ , £ #®´³¸ Ȩ2,)$ȩǾ £ earlier ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¯« ² ²´¡¬¨³³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ³ȁ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ ±¤°´¨±¤² ³§¤ #®´¢¨« ³® £®¯³ ±¤²®«´³¨® ¯¯±®µ¨¦ ®± £¤¸¨¦ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ³²Ȍ ¢« ¨¬ ¶¨³§¨ ΐΗΏ £ ¸² ®¥ ³§¤ £ ³¤ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ¶ ² ¢®¬¯«¤³¤ȁ " ²¤£ ® ³§¤ ²´¡¬¨³³ « ®¥ ²´¯¯«¤¬¤³ « ¨¥®±¬ ³¨® ¡¸ ³§¤ ¢« ¨¬ ³² ® /¢³®¡¤± ΒǾ ΑΏΐΕǾ ³§¤Ǿ #®´¢¨« ¬´²³ ¯¯±®µ¤ ®± £¤¸ ³§¨² ¢« ¨¬ ® « ³¤± ³§ !¯±¨« ΐǾ 2017. ! ¢®¯¸ ®¥ ³§¤ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ claim, «®¦ ¶¨³§ ®³§¤± £®¢´¬¤³² £ ¨¥®±¬ ³¨® ±¤« ³¤£ ³® ³§¤ ¨²²´¤² ¨ ³§¤ -¤ ²´±¤ ΓΘ ¢« ¨¬Ǿ ±¤ ¢®³ ¨¤£ ¨ ®³¤¡®®ª ³§ ³ § ² ¡¤¤ ¯« ¢¤£ ¨ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ¦¤±Ȍ² Officeȁ !«²®Ǿ ¢®¯¸ ®¥ ³§ ³ ®³¤¡®®ª ¨² µ ¨« ¡«¤ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ ¨²¯¤¢³¨® ³ ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ 0« ¨¦ £ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ $¤¯ ±³¬¤³Ǿ &¨±²³ &«®®± 2¤¢¤¯³¨®Ǿ ΘΘ 7¤²³ ΐΏ !µ¤´¤Ǿ %´¦¤¤Ǿ /±¤¦® ΘΖΓΏΐ th ¡¤³¶¤¤ ΘȀΏΏ ȁ¬ȁ £ ΔȀΏΏ ¯ȁ¬ȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 None. #/5.#), /04)/.3 .® ¢³¨® ¨² ±¤°´¨±¤£ ³ ³§¨² ³¨¬¤ǿ §®¶¤µ¤±Ǿ ®¯³¨®² ¶¨«« ¡¤ ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ³ ³§¤ ³¨¬¤ ®¥ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« £¤«¨¡¤± ³¨®² £ ¢³¨® ³® ¡¤ ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ¯±¨®± ³® !¯±¨« ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖȁ #)49 -!.!'%2Ȍ3 2%#/--%.$!4)/. 4§¨² ¨³¤¬ ¨² ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ ®«¸ȁ &®««®¶¨¦ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ £ #¨³¸Ȍ² ±¤¢¤¨¯³ ®¥ ³¤²³¨¬®¸Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ¦¤± ¶¨«« ¬ ª¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨® ³® ¡¤ ¨¢«´£¤£ ¨ ³§¤ ¢®´¢¨« ¯ ¢ª¤³ ¥®± actionǾ ¶§¨¢§ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ¯±¨®± ³® !¯±¨« ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖ. 35''%34%$ -/4)/. .® ¬®³¨® ¨² ¯±®¯®²¤£ ² ³§¨² ¨³¤¬ ¨² ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ ®«¸ȁ &®««®¶¨¦ ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ £ ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² ±¤¢¤¨¯³ ®¥ ³¤²³¨¬®¸Ǿ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ¦¤± ¶¨«« ¬ ª¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨® £ ²²®¢¨ ³¤£ ¬®³¨® ³® ¡¤ ¨¢«´£¤£ ¨ ³§¤ ¢®´¢¨« ¯ ¢ª¤³ ¥®± ¢³¨®,¶§¨¢§ ¶¨«« ¡¤ ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ¯±¨®± ³® !¯±¨« ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖ. ATTACHMENTS A. 6¨¢¨¨³¸ - ¯ B. - ³¤±¨ «² ¥±®¬ #« ¨¬ ³ #ȁ Draft Resolution %·§¨¡¨³ !: $± ¥³ #¨³¸ - ¦¤±Ȍ² 2¤¯®±³ ¥±®¬ .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΐΓǾ ΑΏΐΕ 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦ D. 7±¨³³¤ 4¤²³¨¬®¸ ±¤¢¤¨µ¤£ ³§±®´¦§ * ´ ±¸ 10Ǿ ΑΏΐΖ &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ !«¨²² ( ²¤Ǿ 0±¨¢¨¯ « 0« ¤± 4¤«¤¯§®¤Ȁ 541-682-5508 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: alissa.h.hansen@ci.eugene.or.us Attachment A - Vicinity Map 1777 East 30th Avenue Subject Property Subject Property Caution: Ft This map is based on imprecise Streets source data, subject to change, and for general reference only. 0300150 Taxlots September 2016 ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A MEASURE 49 CLAIM AND WAIVING A PROVISION OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971, FOR TH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1777 E. 30 AVENUE, EUGENE, OREGON 18-03-08-11, TAX LOT 602). The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Chad and Katie Wilson submitted a claim to the City seeking compensation or a waiver of regulations under Ballot Measure 49. Claimants alleged that the maximum height limit provision in subsection (17)(c)9. of Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC), that applies to detached secondary dwellings on the subject property restricts the residential use of th their property and diminished the fair market value of the property at 1777 E. 30 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (the property). B. The City Manager has caused an investigation of the claim to be made, has determined the claim to be valid, and has submitted to the Council a Report and Recommendation that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. be waived. recommended w conversion of the existing structure to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. The recommended waiver does not address the applicability of any other provision that might preclude such conversion. Further, the waiver of the height limit in EC 9.27.51(17)(c)9. does not allow further above the height that existed on the date that Cla City (February 24, 2016). C. of the claim, and the lack of City funds with which to pay compensation to the claimants, the City Council finds the public interest will be best served by waiving the requirement of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. Based on the above findings, which are adopted, and the analysis contained in the Report and Recommendation of the City Manager, the City Council hereby waives EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. for the property owned by Claimants Chad and Katie Wilson 18-03-08-11, Tax Lot 602. Section 2. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to Chad and Katie Wilson at thth 1777 E. 30 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97405, to their representative, Bill Kloos at 375 W. 4 Street, Suite 204, Eugene, Oregon 97401, and nning & Development Department. A copy of this Resolution shall be recorded with the Lane County Records Department. Resolution - Page 1of 2 Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. th The foregoing Resolution adopted the 14 day of November, 2016. ________________ City Recorder Resolution - Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A to RESOLUTION BALLOT MEASURE 49 (ORS 195.300ORS 195.336) CLAIM FORCOMPENSATION NOVEMBER14, 2016 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OFTHE CITYMANAGER NAME OF CLAIMANTS: Chad and Katie Wilson th PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1777E.30Avenue Eugene, OR97405 REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Kloos PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: Tax Lot 602of Assessor Map 18-03-08-11 ZONING: Low Density Residential; R-1 I.Summary of Claim Chad and Katie Wilson (Claimants) submitted a claim under Ballot Measure 49 for compensation for the alleged reduction in fair market value to their property located at 1777E. th 30 Avenue in Eugene, Oregon.The property currently contains a residence, built in 2004, on the southwest portion of the property.Claimants built the residence with the intention of later converting itto a dwelling and building a larger, primary residence on the northern portion of the property.Claimants assert that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., whichlimits and prescribes a certain method of measuring the height/sloped setback of detached secondary dwelling units, restricts the residential use of their property, asit prohibits them from converting the residence built in 2004 into a secondary dwelling.Claimants contend that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., enacted in 2014, reduces the fair market value of their property.Claimants assert a $60,000 decline in the value of their property, but do not specifically articulate a request for compensation.Rather, Claimants request that the City waive EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., allowing them to construct a new primary dwelling on their property andto convert the existing dwelling into a legal detached secondary dwelling unit. II.Summary of City Recommendation Measure 49 generally grants a property owner of residentially zoned land located within an urban growth boundary the right to compensation or waiver of the regulation (at the option of the government) if five substantive requirements are met.First, the regulation must constitute a use as that term is definedby Measure 49.Second, the public entity against which the claim is made must have enacted the regulation after January 1, 2007, but not more than Page 1REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OFTHE CITYMANAGER five years before the date the claim was filed. Third, the regulation must the residential of residentially zoned private property. Fourth, the effect of the regulation must be to cause a reduction of the fair market value of the property. Fifth, the regulation must not fall within one of Measure six exemptions. As discussed below, the regulation that is the subject of this claim qualifies as land use regulations, was enacted after January 1, 2007, and less than five years before the date the claim was filed, effectively restricts a previously allowed residential use on the residentially zoned property, and reduces the fair market value. Further, the regulation does not fall within one of Measure six exemptions. Therefore, this report concludes that the claim is valid. If a claim is determined to be valid under Measure 49, a local government must either (1) compensate the claimant for the reduction in the fair market value of the property, or (2) authorize the claimant to use the property without application of the land use regulation the extent necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market value of the The Claimants do not specifically request compensation; accordingly, the City Manager recommends that the City Council waive EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. as it relates to the existing structure on the property and to the extent the waiver is needed to allow conversion of that structure to a secondary dwelling unit. III.Analysis of Claim A.Ownership Measure 49 provides for payment of compensation or relief from (waiver of) specific regulations for as that term is defined by the Measure. Ballot Measure 49, defines to include \[t\]he owner of fee title to the property as shown in the deed records of the county where the property is located\[.\] ORS 195.300(18). Based on the information submitted by the Claimants (Warranty Deed 2003-082408 and Deed 2014-049003), and information from the Lane County Regional Land Information Database (RLID), the City Manager concludes that the subject property was acquired by Claimant Chad Wilson on August 26, 2003, and an undivided one-half interest in the property was transferred to Claimant Katie Wilson on December 9, 2014. Accordingly, both Claimants are owners. B. Use R Measure 49 requires compensation (or waiver) only for those regulations that constitute use as that term is defined by Measure 49. Further, the regulation must have been enacted after January 1, 2007. Measure 49 defines use regul with respect to cities, as a of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential ORS 195.300(14)(c) For purposes of Measure 49, EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a use if it is a provision of a city zoning ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential use. EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a provision of the zoning ordinance, and it regulates residential uses on property zoned for residential uses. This land use regulation was adopted as part of Ordinance No. 20526, which became effective April 12, 2014. Thus, the only Page 2 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER question remaining is whether EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. the residential of the subject property. C. Restriction on Residential Use A use gives rise to a Measure 49 claim only if the regulation restricts the residential use of private property and thus reduces the fair market value of property. The specific regulation that Claimants point to is EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., which provides a height limit for new attached and detached secondary dwelling units within the city-recognized boundaries of Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount Neighbors and South University Neighborhood and proscribes a method for 1 determining the height of a building. Adopted on March 12, 2014 (by Ordinance No. 20526) and effective on April 12, 2014, EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. establishes the following limitations for detached secondary dwellings in that neighborhood: (17) Secondary Dwellings in R-1 . . . . (c) Area-Specific Secondary Dwelling Standards. The following standards apply to all new attached or detached secondary dwellings in the R-1 zone within the city- recognized boundaries of Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount Neighbors and South University Neighborhood Association: . . . . 9. Building Height/Interior Setback. For detached secondary dwellings: a. The interior yard setback shall be at least 5 feet from the interior lot line. In addition, at a point that is 8 feet above grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 40 degrees from horizontal) away from the lot line until a point not to exceed a maximum building height of 18 feet. b. The allowances for setback intrusions provided at EC 9.6745(3) do not apply within the setback described in 1. above, except that eaves, chimneys and gables are allowed to project into this setback no more than 2 feet. Њ While Claimants do not provide this information, staff has determined that the subject property falls within the boundaries of the Fairmount Neighbors. Page 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER Prior to the adoption of the above-quoted code provision, the code-prescribed manner for measuring the building height of a detached secondary dwelling would have allowed for the existing dwelling to have been converted to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. See Section 2 of Ordinance No. 20417. That is, under the code provisions that existed prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, the existing structure met the height requirement for a detached secondary dwelling. However, the code-prescribed manner for measuring the building height of a detached secondary dwelling that went into effect on April 12, 2014 (quoted above), prevents the Claimants from converting the existing structure to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. That is, based on the measuring method adopted in 2014, the existing structure exceeds the maximum height allowed for a detached secondary dwelling. Claimants assert that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a use that the residential of the subject property because their existing structure satisfied the height requirements for a detached secondary dwelling prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526 but no longer satisfied the height requirements after the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Stated another way, prior the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Claimants could have converted the existing residence to a detached secondary dwelling unit and constructed another, primary, residence on the subject property. In fact, in June of 2014, Claimants sought a building permit to do just that. However, because Ordinance No. 20526 went into effect on April 12, 2014 (approximately two months prior to the Claimants seeking a building permit), the City could not issue Claimants the building permit to convert the existing residence into a secondary dwelling. On March 12, 2013 (one year before the regulation was enacted), Claimants could have converted their existing structure into a detached secondary dwelling and constructed a new, larger, primary dwelling on the remainder of their property. The record reflects that the Claimants intended to do so. Following adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. Claimants could no longer convert the existing dwelling into a detached secondary dwelling unit because, based on the manner in which the structure must be measured, the existing structure is too tall to qualify as a detached secondary dwelling unit. Thus, the residential use currently allowed on the property is restricted by EC 9.2751(17)(c)9.,when compared to what was allowed on the property prior to the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526. D. Reduction in Value The regulation restricts the residential use of the subject property in such a way that reduces the fair market value of the property. Claimants submitted appraisals of the fair market value of the property one year before the adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. (March 12, 2013) and one year 2 after the adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. The March 12, 2013, appraisal provides a property value of $470,000. The March 12, 2015, appraised provides a property value of $410,000. As of the date of this Recommendation, there is nothing in the record that contradicts the accuracy of the appraisals submitted by Claimants. Accordingly, the appraisals confirm that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., which restricts the residential use of the property, reduces the fair market value of the Claim property. 2 Measure 49 requires the reduction in fair market value of the property be demonstrated through an appraisal that meets certain requirements. ORS 194.310(2). The appraisal submitted by Claimants satisfies those requirements. Page 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER E. Exemptions Finally, a Measure 49 claim is not valid if the challenged regulation falls within one of the exemptions under the Measure. Regulations adopted to protect the public health and safety, prevent nuisances, or comply with federal law are exempt under Measure 49, even if they otherwise constitute use that the residential and the fair market of property. Regulations that (1) restrict or prohibit the use of the property for selling pornography or performing nude dancing, (2) plan and rezone land for industrial zoning to be included in the UGB, or (3) plan and rezone land already within a UGB to industrial zoning, are also exempt under Measure 49. Finally, Measure 49 does not apply to regulations that were enacted before the Claimant(s) acquired the property. The regulation at issue in this claim does not fall within any of these exemptions. IV. Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the analysis set-forth above, the City Manager recommends that the City Council conclude that the subject Measure 49 claim is valid. In lieu of compensation, the City Manager recommends that the City Council waive the height limit provisions of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. to the extent such waiver is necessary to offset the reduction in fair market value. The scope of the City recommended waiver addresses only the applicability of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. to the conversion of the existing structure to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. The recommended waiver does not address the applicability of any other provision that might preclude such conversion. Further, the waiver of the height limit in EC 9.27.51(17)(c)9. does not allow further modifications to the existing structure that would increase the height of the structure above the height that existed on the date that filed their Measure 49 claim with the City (February 24, 2016). Because the City Manager is recommending that the Council grant the a waiver of the height limitation in EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., and Measure 49 authorizes a public hearing by the City Council in such instances, this claim has been scheduled for a public hearing on November 14, 2016. Page 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENT D HANSEN Alissa H From:HAMMOND Laura A Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 12:57 PM To:HOSTICK Robin A; HANSEN Alissa H Subject:FW: Request to leave record open on Measure 49 claim From:PaulConte\[mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com\] Sent:Monday,November14,201610:03AM To:*EugeneMayor,CityCouncil,andCityManager<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc:EmilySemple<emily@emilysemple.org>;EugeneNLC<eugenenlc@googlegroups.com> Subject:RequesttoleaverecordopenonMeasure49claim November 14, 2016 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, Just today I (and many other neighborhood leaders) learned of the Measure 49 claim on your agenda for "Public Hearing and possible action." I'm requesting that you not take action tonight and leave the record open for at least one week so that neighborhood organizations can become fully informed and provide testimony. Note that the City has until January 17, 2017 to take action on this claim. I have briefly reviewed the claim application, and I believe there are substantial deficiencies in the claim and the staff assessment. In particular, the two appraisals do not appear to be valid for this particular claim, as I will explain after an opportunity to get additional professional advice. For the record, I am objecting to the "hypothetical" 2012 appraisal as being too high, the 2016 appraisal as being too low, and the differential not appropriately reflecting causes other than the cited code restriction. I am also objecting because the analysis did not do a net cost assessment of the alternative of bring the existing structure into code conformance and/or seeking adjustments and/or variances. Note that the claim asserts a "loss of $60,000" based soley on the difference between a "hypothetical" appraisal and a "at present" appraisal. However, it appears that bringing the existing dwelling into code compliance would cost far less than $60,000. The two appraisals should have accounted for this option. As I hope you are all aware, although this claim is for a specific property and a development standard that applies only to the three university neighborhoods, the legal argument inherent in the claim would essential negate all residential standards adopted after 2011 and into the future. 1 This would render virtually meaningless any new residential code or refinement plan policies that implement the Envision Eugene pillar to "Protect, Repair and Enhance Neighborhood Livability." Before so casually approving a resolution that would undo your prior work and thwart Envision Eugene, you should give this claim the utmost scrutiny. At the very least, you should get an independent pair of appraisals before approving any waiver, as well as a financial analysis of alternative solutions. Further, if a waiver is ultimately granted, the resolution must be much clearer and stronger in preventing the use of this action as a legal precedent with sweeping implications for all recent and future residential code provisions. As you may recall, the Jefferson Westside Neighbors worked with the owner of a property on West Tenth Ave. in JWN and the City attorney to jointly support a Measure 37 claim with very carefully constructed resolution and a record that limited the impacts. If the owners of the subject property in this claim have a reasonable case (and they may), then the proper approach would be to work with the neighborhood organization and staff to craft a comparable agreement among all parties. Since I led the successful M37 claim process, I would be glad to offer suggestions or help in any other way to reach a solution that is fair, sensitive to the community's greater good and which can withstand legal challenge. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Conte 1461 W. 10th Ave. Eugene, OR 97402 _________________ 2 HANSEN Alissa H From:tomhappy@aol.com Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 11:58 AM To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Measure 49 claim on tonight's agenda Dear Mayor and Council, As Chair of Jefferson Westside Neighbors, it has just come to my attention that tonight you will consider a recommendation from the City Manager to approve a Measure 49 claim submitted by attorney Bill Kloos. I urge you to take NO ACTION on this request at tonight's meeting. I worry about unintended consequences of such action, as it might set a harmful precedent for all Eugene neighborhoods with R-1 zoning. This deserves thorough study and perhaps public input. Thanks you for your consideration of my request. Respectfully, Tom Happy 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:ASPEGREN Bill (SMTP) Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 1:59 PM To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Cc:ASPEGREN Bill (SMTP); JACOBS Carolyn (SMTP); Constance Van Flandern; Kari Parsons; ILLIG Laura (SMTP); Marsha Shankman; Matt Roberts; Nancy Meyer; Pamela Miller; Rebekah Hanley; Tracy Phelan; Emily Semple; Lucy Vinis; DUNLAVEY Garrett (SMTP); PRICHARD Sue (SMTP); Camilla Bayliss; PRINCE Randy (SMTP) Subject:Measure 49 Claim Regarding an SDU - Keep Record Open Mayor,CityCouncilorsandCityManager,thismorningIbecameawareofapublichearingandCouncilaction scheduledforthisevening,onameasure49claimrelatingtoconvertingacurrenthometoaSecondary DwellingUnit(SDU). The Eugene Code relating to this claim only applies to Fairmont, South University and Amazon neighborhoods. Apparently, none of the neighborhood boards were notified of this action. Given that there are 119 pages of supporting material I would like to request that the record be left open for a week to provide an opportunity for neighbor comments and to consider possible alternatives. Please do not act on this issue tonight! You have until January 17, 2017 to make a final decision. Bill Aspegren 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:JACOBS Carolyn (SMTP) Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 2:19 PM To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Comments regarding Measure 49 claim Dear Mayor and City Councilors, On thevery day of the public hearing it has come to our attention that you have a on tonight's City Council meeting agenda a Measure 49 claim and the option for immediate action. Please be aware that NO notification has been given to the chairs and/or boards of the three neighborhoods affected by the relevant code language. Since public engagement is so central to how the City operates, I strongly urge you to not take any action tonight and to keep the the record open for another week before determining the best resolution for this particular case without compromising the City's commitment to the protection of neighborhood livability. Thank you, Carolyn Jacobs 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:mmws@comcast.net Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 2:25 PM To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Re: Request for no action to be taken tonight on Measure 49 claim To Mayor Piercy, City Councilors, and City Manager Ruiz, As a member of the board of the South University Neighborhood Association, I am writing to request that no action be taken tonight on a Measure 49 claim that affects R1 codes in the Amazon, Fairmount, and South University neighborhoods. Our board has only now become aware of this public hearing. I am requesting that the record be left open for at least another week so that constituents who might be affected by any ruling in this matter can study the issue and respond. Thank you. Marsha Shankman South University Neighborhood Association 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:DAVIES Anne C Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 1:10 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Subject:FW: Re-zoning South Eugene From:RobIllig\[mailto:rillig@uoregon.edu\] Sent:Monday,November14,20163:24PM To:*EugeneMayor,CityCouncil,andCityManager<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject:RezoningSouthEugene To Our Local Elected Officials, I just discovered that the Council is planning to discuss and possibly act on a plan that would effectively remove all zoning protections from the South Eugene neighborhoods. This is the kind of decision that no one in South Eugene would ever forget or forgive, including during the next election cycle. Please do not act in haste. Give some time for our neighbors to respond and do not take any action at tonight’s meeting. Perhaps there is a way forward that will not put you in the position of enraging an entire segment of the local population. Thank you. - Rob Illig 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:Laura K. Illig <lillig@selco.org> Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 4:51 PM To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Action on a Measure 49 claim Dear Mayor and City Councilors, I understand that the City Manager has recommended that Council approve tonight a Measure 49 claim that might negate all R-1 code amendments that provide protection against incompatible infill in three close-in neighborhoods: SUNA, Fairmount and Amazon. I am writing to urge you to NOT take action tonight –especially since you have until January 2017 to respond- and instead to have significantly more public notice and conversation before hastily taking such impactful action. It is completely unacceptable – even if it meets some minimal legal standard – to provide zero notice to or opportunity for input from affected neighborhoods about such a claim. Our close-in neighborhoods are already under siege, and managing a precarious balance of renters, apartments and single-family homes. Sometimes it feels as if Eugene’s goal is to completely destroy and drive homeowners out of precisely the “20-minute neighborhoods” that Envision Eugene espouses and instead create more neighborhoods that will require increased police action and code enforcement (such as West University) and reduce livability for everyone. I strongly urge you NOT to take action tonight, and instead to involved and engage neighborhoods appropriately in such a significant and far-reaching decision. Thank you, Laura Illig Laura Illig Vice President of Marketing SELCO Community Credit Union Eugene – Downtown Corporate Headquarters Phone/Fax: 541-686-5394 | lillig@selco.org selco.org | facebook | twitter Disclaimer: This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of a specific individual or entity or specific individuals or entities and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may represent a tortious interference with a confidential business relationship(s). If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and (i) permanently destroy this message if a facsimile, (ii) permanently delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication, (iii) permanently destroy any electronic or printed copies of this electronic communication. 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:DAVIES Anne C Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 1:13 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Subject:FW: Tonight's public hearing on Measure 49 claim From:pamelamillera@comcast.net\[mailto:pamelamillera@comcast.net\] Sent:Monday,November14,20164:37PM To:*EugeneMayor,CityCouncil,andCityManager<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject:Tonight'spublichearingonMeasure49claim Dear Mayor, City Council and City Manager, I urge you to delay decision on the Measure 49 claim scheduled for public hearing at tonight's Council meeting, and to extend the record for an additional week, at minimum. As a neighborhood resident and member of SUNA's Board, I am concerned that the broader implications of this claim have not been sufficiently explored. Also, neighborhoods have not been given sufficient notice to engage in this issue around the long term implications to neighborhood livability that an unconsidered response could entail. In the interest of upholding Envision Eugene's pillar regarding the protection, repair and enhancement of Neighborhood Livability, I urge you to consider carefully the nature of the City's response to this claim; and to explore remediation measures, if warranted, that do not set a precedent that may undermine the intent and body of existing and future Code measures that are designed to enhance and protect neighborhood livability! Sincerely, Pamela Miller 1959 Harris Street Eugene OR 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 6:04 PM To:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Existing dwelling on M49 lot exceeds 2013 max area This just in ... According the figures included with the M49 application, the existing dwelling is a 27'x32' "ADU" above a garage. That equals 864 sq. ft. The code in 2013 had a max of 800 s.f., which this dwelling appears to exceed. See EC 9.2741(2)(a)1: " The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet ..." If this is accurate, the M49 claim is invalid. Of course, staff needs to determine the exact square footage of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling also may actually conflict with the 2013 max height standards. This will require a site plan to determine. In any case, the Council must leave the record open to determine whether or not the existing dwelling actually met the 2013 SDU standards, as claimed. For the record, I object to approval of this claim because the existing dwelling would not have met the 2013 standards for a secondary dwelling unit. -- Paul ________________ 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:DAVIES Anne C Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 1:15 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Subject:FW: Existing dwelling on M49 lot exceeds 2013 max area From:PaulConte\[mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com\] Sent:Tuesday,November15,20169:57AM To:*EugeneMayor,CityCouncil,andCityManager<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc:EugeneNLC<eugenenlc@googlegroups.com> Subject:Re:ExistingdwellingonM49lotexceeds2013maxarea Councilors, As further follow-up for the record on the Wilson Measure 49 claim. In your November 14 AIS, on the page identified as "WILSON EXHIBITS - Page 7," the Lane County "Detailed Property Report" shows the square footage of the dwelling as 808 square feet, which exceeded the SDU maximum of 800 square feet prior to Ordinance No. 20526. I've also attached two building permits issued in 2014. (See also "WILSON EXHIBITS - Page 9" where the following descriptions are recorded.) Permit Number: 14-03407-01 -- Received 06/17/14 Project Description: Convert former single family dwelling (built under 04-01223-01) to a Secondary Dwelling Unit ****NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS UNDER 14-03380-01*** 6/18/14: APPLICATION CANCELLED, STRUCTURE WILL BECOME ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA TO NEW HOME (NOT AN SDU) Permit Number: 14-03380-01 -- Received 06/16/14 Project Description: New single family dwelling with attached garage. ***This permit also includes conversion to Living Area in a detached structure (Not an SDU) previously permitted under 04-01223-01*** It is quite clear that: a) The existing dwelling did not comply with the SDU standards in effect prior to Ordinance No. 20526. and b) at the time the Claimant applied for building permits for a new dwelling, he stated his intent to "not convert or use the detached accessory structure as a secondary dwelling unit." See the "NOTICE OF Building Permit that does not constitute a Secondary Dwelling Unit" from the owner, Chad R. Wilson (included in the AIS), which states: "I also understand that City permit records will be retained which reflect my decision to not convert or use the detached accessory structure as a secondary dwelling unit." The City Manager has provided City Council a blatantly false and misleading statement in his "Report and Recommendation of the City Manager" provided in your AIS: "On March 12, 2013 (one year before the regulation was enacted), Claimants could have converted their existing structure into a detached secondary dwelling and constructed a 1 new, larger, primary dwelling on the remainder of their property. The record reflects that the Claimants intended to do so." (Page 4) It also appears that the staff may not have provided the statutorily required public notice of this claim and attempted to fly another exception to neighborhood protections under the radar. The City has already been subject to two remands from the Oregon Court of Appeals for failing to provide public notices required by statute in the "Oakleigh Meadows PUD" appeal. Now this happens. At some point the City Council needs to hold the City Manager accountable for flouting public notice laws and subverting Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 -- Citizen Involvement. The City Manager also bears responsibility for simply rubber-stamping the Measure 49 claim as written by Bill Kloos rather than doing "due diligence" to protect the community interests. Thank you for your consideration. -- Paul _________________ On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> wrote: This just in ... According the figures included with the M49 application, the existing dwelling is a 27'x32' "ADU" above a garage. That equals 864 sq. ft. The code in 2013 had a max of 800 s.f., which this dwelling appears to exceed. See EC 9.2741(2)(a)1: " The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet ..." If this is accurate, the M49 claim is invalid. Of course, staff needs to determine the exact square footage of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling also may actually conflict with the 2013 max height standards. This will require a site plan to determine. In any case, the Council must leave the record open to determine whether or not the existing dwelling actually met the 2013 SDU standards, as claimed. For the record, I object to approval of this claim because the existing dwelling would not have met the 2013 standards for a secondary dwelling unit. 2 -- Paul ________________ 3 HANSEN Alissa H From:DAVIES Anne C Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 11:07 AM To:HANSEN Alissa H Subject:FW: Existing dwelling on M49 lot exceeds 2013 max area Attachments:PermitReport14-03380-01.pdf; PermitReport14-03407-01.pdf From:PaulConte\[mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com\] Sent:Tuesday,November15,201610:32AM To:*EugeneMayor,CityCouncil,andCityManager<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc:EugeneNLC<eugenenlc@googlegroups.com> Subject:Re:ExistingdwellingonM49lotexceeds2013maxarea Building permits attached. _________________ On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> wrote: Councilors, As further follow-up for the record on the Wilson Measure 49 claim. In your November 14 AIS, on the page identified as "WILSON EXHIBITS - Page 7," the Lane County "Detailed Property Report" shows the square footage of the dwelling as 808 square feet, which exceeded the SDU maximum of 800 square feet prior to Ordinance No. 20526. I've also attached two building permits issued in 2014. (See also "WILSON EXHIBITS - Page 9" where the following descriptions are recorded.) Permit Number: 14-03407-01 -- Received 06/17/14 Project Description: Convert former single family dwelling (built under 04-01223-01) to a Secondary Dwelling Unit ****NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS UNDER 14-03380-01*** 6/18/14: APPLICATION CANCELLED, STRUCTURE WILL BECOME ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA TO NEW HOME (NOT AN SDU) Permit Number: 14-03380-01 -- Received 06/16/14 Project Description: New single family dwelling with attached garage. ***This permit also includes conversion to Living Area in a detached structure (Not an SDU) previously permitted under 04-01223-01*** It is quite clear that: a) The existing dwelling did not comply with the SDU standards in effect prior to Ordinance No. 20526. and b) at the time the Claimant applied for building permits for a new dwelling, he stated his intent to "not convert or use the detached accessory structure as a secondary dwelling unit." See the "NOTICE OF Building Permit that does not constitute a Secondary Dwelling Unit" from the owner, Chad R. Wilson (included in the AIS), which states: 1 "I also understand that City permit records will be retained which reflect my decision to not convert or use the detached accessory structure as a secondary dwelling unit." The City Manager has provided City Council a blatantly false and misleading statement in his "Report and Recommendation of the City Manager" provided in your AIS: "On March 12, 2013 (one year before the regulation was enacted), Claimants could have converted their existing structure into a detached secondary dwelling and constructed a new, larger, primary dwelling on the remainder of their property. The record reflects that the Claimants intended to do so." (Page 4) It also appears that the staff may not have provided the statutorily required public notice of this claim and attempted to fly another exception to neighborhood protections under the radar. The City has already been subject to two remands from the Oregon Court of Appeals for failing to provide public notices required by statute in the "Oakleigh Meadows PUD" appeal. Now this happens. At some point the City Council needs to hold the City Manager accountable for flouting public notice laws and subverting Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 1 -- Citizen Involvement. The City Manager also bears responsibility for simply rubber-stamping the Measure 49 claim as written by Bill Kloos rather than doing "due diligence" to protect the community interests. Thank you for your consideration. -- Paul _________________ On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> wrote: This just in ... According the figures included with the M49 application, the existing dwelling is a 27'x32' "ADU" above a garage. That equals 864 sq. ft. The code in 2013 had a max of 800 s.f., which this dwelling appears to exceed. See EC 9.2741(2)(a)1: " The dwelling shall not exceed 800 square feet ..." If this is accurate, the M49 claim is invalid. Of course, staff needs to determine the exact square footage of the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling also may actually conflict with the 2013 max height standards. This will require a site plan to determine. 2 In any case, the Council must leave the record open to determine whether or not the existing dwelling actually met the 2013 SDU standards, as claimed. For the record, I object to approval of this claim because the existing dwelling would not have met the 2013 standards for a secondary dwelling unit. -- Paul ________________ 3 City of Eugene Planning & Development Building and Permit Services Permit Number: 14-03380-01 Date: 11/15/2016 Address: 1777 E 30TH AVE Project Description: New single family dwelling with attached garage. ***This permit also includes conversion to Living Area in a detached structure (Not an SDU) previously permitted under 04-01223-01*** Application Type:Status: ResidentialExpired Scope of Work:Zoning: New Single Family DwellingLow-density Residential Zone Map:Tax Lot: 18-03-08-1100602 Subdivision:Addition: Lot:Block: 1 Date Received:# Bedrooms: 06/16/143 Commitment Date:# Dwelling Units: 07/03/141 Ready to issue as of:In Flood Plain: Project Coordinator:Phone: Erik Swinney541-682-5372 Sign Standards: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Construction Types: Construction Type Comments: 5B Additional Energy Measure: 3A OccupancyTypes: Occupancy Type Comments: R3ORSC: 1 & 2 Family Dwelling UPrivate Garage Occupancy Load: Separated Building: 0N/A Fire Sprinklers: N/A N/A Fire Alarms: Building Area:Number of Stories: 48682 Comment: (3690sf * $107.08/sf) + (646sf * $40.62/sf) + (532sf * $20.31/sf) = $432,170. Floor Areas (sq ft): FloorExisting Floor AreaNew Floor AreaTotal Area 1st Floor029342934 2nd Floor0756756 Covered porch0532532 Garage0646646 Existing floor area may not be shown. CONTRACTOR DATA TypeContractor BuildingWILSON HOMES Primary ContactWILSON CHAD R PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Page 1 of 3Date: 11/15/2016 Plan review data displayed is the most current for each review. The applicant will receive notification of all issues needing additional information after all reviews on a project have been completed. Supplemental Information (SI) can be submitted prior to or after permit issuance. If you have any questions reguarding your project, contact EFSwinney at 541-682-5372 or send email to erik.f.swinney@ci.eugene.or.us. Also note that some reviews (i.e., fire alarms, fire sprinklers) are deferred submittals and will be reviewed after original permit(s) have been issued. Status Definitions Pending=Review has not been started Review=Under review Waiting=Review for individual review has been completed, waiting for a response External Wait=All reviews for project have been completed, waiting for a response Approved=Review has been approved Information=Information only, review not approved Denied=Project cannot be approved as submitted For information regarding the review of your project or the commitment date for completion of review, please contact your project coordinator, EFSwinney, at erik.f.swinney@ci.eugene.or.us or by phone at 541 -682-5372. Plan ReviewStatusReview Completion Date Project CoordinationExternal Wait Time07/03/14 BuildingWaiting for info07/03/14 Building-SIApproved05/22/15 ZoningWaiting for info06/30/14 EngineeringApproved07/10/14 SDCApproved06/20/14 Erosion PreventionPending Fire MarshalInformation02/25/15 Fire Marshal SIInformation06/10/15 PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Issued Permit TypeStatusExpiration DateCompletion Date Date Pending Building InspectionResultInspectedInspectorComment 103 FootingNeeded 105 Elec Rebar GroundNeeded 108 FoundationNeeded 114 Underfloor FramingNeeded 116 Underfloor Needed Insulation 118 FramingNeeded 119 Exterior ShearwallNeeded 120 Wall/Vault Needed Insulation 130 Lath or Dry WallNeeded 124 Final InsulationNeeded 190 Moisture Content Needed Form 191 Energy Rqmnts Needed Lighting Form 122 Exterior Wall Env Needed Cert Form 199 Final BuildingNeeded Page 2 of 3Date: 11/15/2016 Pending Electrical InspectionResultInspectedInspectorComment 205 Temp ElectricalNeeded 210 Undergrnd/Slab Needed Elec 217 Electrical ServiceNeeded 220 Rough ElectricalNeeded 230 Limited EnergyNeeded 299 Final ElectricalNeeded Pending Mechanical InspectionResultInspectedInspectorComment 410 Underfloor Needed Mechanical 416 Rough Gas PipingNeeded 450 Final Gas PipingNeeded 420 Rough MechanicalNeeded 445 Fuel Burn Needed Appliance 499 Final MechanicalNeeded Pending Plumbing InspectionResultInspectedInspectorComment 310 Sanitary SewerNeeded 315 Storm SewerNeeded 318 Under Floor PlumbNeeded 320 Rough PlumbingNeeded 325 Water ServiceNeeded 330 Shower LinerNeeded 399 Final PlumbingNeeded https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/BuildingPermits/InspectionLogin To request an inspection go to . For more information call 541-682-5283. Page 3 of 3Date: 11/15/2016 City of Eugene Planning & Development Building and Permit Services Permit Number: 14-03407-01 Date: 11/15/2016 Address: 1777 E 30TH AVE, UNIT A Project Description: Convert former single family dwelling (built under 04-01223-01) to a Secondary Dwelling Unit ****NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING IS UNDER 14-03380-01*** 6/18/14: APPLICATION CANCELLED, STRUCTURE WILL BECOME ADDITIONAL LIVING AREA TO NEW HOME (NOT AN SDU) Application Type:Status: ResidentialCancelled Scope of Work:Zoning: Secondary Dwelling UnitLow-density Residential Zone Map:Tax Lot: 18-03-08-1100602 Subdivision:Addition: Lot:Block: Date Received:# Bedrooms: 06/17/140 Commitment Date:# Dwelling Units: 0 Ready to issue as of:In Flood Plain: Project Coordinator:Phone: Sign Standards: BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Construction Types: Construction Type Comments: OccupancyTypes: Occupancy Type Comments: Occupancy Load: Separated Building: 0N/A Fire Sprinklers: N/A N/A Fire Alarms: Building Area:Number of Stories: 00 Comment: Floor Areas (sq ft): FloorExisting Floor AreaNew Floor AreaTotal Area Existing floor area may not be shown. CONTRACTOR DATA TypeContractor Primary ContactWILSON CHAD R PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Plan review data displayed is the most current for each review. The applicant will receive notification of all issues needing additional information after all reviews on a project have been completed. Supplemental Information (SI) can be submitted prior to or after permit issuance. If you have any questions reguarding your project, contact MJMcKerrow at 541-682-5251 or send email to mike.j.mckerrow@ci.eugene.or.us. Also note that some reviews (i.e., fire alarms, fire sprinklers) are deferred submittals and will be reviewed after original permit(s) have been issued. Status Definitions Page 1 of 2Date: 11/15/2016 Pending=Review has not been started Review=Under review Waiting=Review for individual review has been completed, waiting for a response External Wait=All reviews for project have been completed, waiting for a response Approved=Review has been approved Information=Information only, review not approved Denied=Project cannot be approved as submitted For information regarding the review of your project or the commitment date for completion of review, please contact your project coordinator, MJMcKerrow, at mike.j.mckerrow@ci.eugene.or.us or by phone at 541-682-5251. Plan ReviewStatusReview Completion Date Project CoordinationPending ZoningPending PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS Issued Permit TypeStatusExpiration DateCompletion Date Date Pending Building InspectionResultInspectedInspectorComment 199 Final BuildingNeeded https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/BuildingPermits/InspectionLogin To request an inspection go to . For more information call 541-682-5283. Page 2 of 2Date: 11/15/2016 HANSEN Alissa H From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 05, 2017 11:41 AM To:HANSEN Alissa H Cc:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:* Time-sensitive* Testimony and requests re Measure 49 claim Attachments:ConteMeasure49Letter5Jan17.pdf Alissa, Please acknowledge receipt of the attached letter as testimony in the Measure49claimby Chad & Katie Wilson. I would appreciate a response to the requests as soon as you're able Thank you, Paul _________________ 1 Chad & KatieWilson. This letter is based on theEugene City Council Agenda Item Summary (AIS) for the November 14, 2016 meeting and the attachedmaterials.References to Wxxreferto the pages identifiedas“WILSON EXHIBITS–Pagexx”. 1.As of today, there arenodocumentsrelated to this applicationposted on the City’s on-line Land Use Application website. Would you please promptly post all relevant application material on the City’s website, and advise me when they are available. 2.The October 3, 2016 Letter from Bill Kloos provided information in response toa request from the City for more information. This wouldappear tomean that the application wasn’t“complete” until at least that date. Based on that date, the statutory deadline for a decision by the City would be April 1, 2017. Wouldyou please provide the datethe claim application was deemed“complete”and the corresponding deadline for a decision by the Citypursuantto ORS 300.195(10) and(6). 3.ORS195.305(5)provides that:“\[a\]public entity may adopt or apply procedures for the processing ofMeasure 49\]claims.”I haven’t been able to locate any City Council resolution or Administrative Order that was adoptedsettingforth procedures for processingMeasure 49 claims. Would you please identify the procedures that staffarefollowing for processing this Measure 49claim; particularly, any procedure adopted by the City setting forth the timelines for a publichearing, including extending the hearing beyond the date when oral testimony is accepted so that additional evidence and arguments may be submitted according to ORS 195.314(3). 1 4.There are numerous potential deficiencies in the appraisals submitted by the applicantthat must beindependently evaluated by the City to determine compliance with requirements of“fair market value”(e.g., in ORS 195.332) and therequirementin ORS 195.305that“\[j\]ust compensation under ORS 195.310(Claim for compensation) to 195.314 (Notice of claim) shall be based on the reduction in the fair market value of the propertyresulting from the land use regulation.” ORS195.326 provides that:“The Department of Land Conservation and Development is authorized to retain persons to review the appraisals.” I am requesting that the City request DLCD to review the appraisals and provide a report to be considered by City Council. In lieu of a review by DLCD, the City should engage a qualified, independent appraiser to provide a review and report. 5.ORS195.314(3)provides that:“written evidence and arguments in proceedings on the claim must be submitted to the public entity not later than:(a) The close of the final public hearing on the claim.” In order toallow time for the City and/or interested parties to solicit a review of the appraisals, I am requesting that the City Manager advise the City Council to not close the hearing(or to schedule a second hearing)until a review of the appraisals is submittedfor Council’s consideration. Given the current deadlines for submitting testimony, I would appreciate a response assoon as possible, as you’re ableto addresseach of the questions and requests. Thank you. /signed Paul Conte 1461 W.TENTH AVE. Eugene, OR 97402 HANSEN Alissa H From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 1:40 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Cc:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Potential deficiency in Measure 49 Public Hearing notice Alissa, I may be mistaken, but it appears that the Public Notice of the January 17, 2017 Public Hearing on the "Wilson M49 Claim" may not have provided a mandatory item required by the statutes. ORS 195.314(2)(a) requires the notice to include " the final date for submission of written evidence and arguments relating to the claim." While a person who has read all of ORS 195.314 may be able to understand the deadline, I don't see that the notice itself provides sufficient information. Given the City's poor track record on procedural issues, you may want to consider re-scheduling and re-noticing the hearing to avoid an appeal based on an error that prejudices the rights of interested parties. -- Paul _________________ 1 HANSEN Alissa H From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 4:58 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Cc:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Re: * Time-sensitive* Testimony and requests re Measure 49 claim Alissa, Thank you for the quick response and posting the M49 documents. I just got off the phone with a DLCD staff member who clarified a couple things ... DLCD does review appraisals, but only when the claim is related to a state regulation. They do not review appraisals for local jurisdictions. On an informal basis (i.e., she is not an appraiser or attorney and was not providing a DLCD position or other formal advice), she agreed that the appraisals should probably have been for what existed as of the "pre" and "post" dates and should not have speculated on the value with a "hypothetical" house, which might or might be constructed. I also spoke with a highly-regarded local appraiser who also felt the addition of a "hypothetical house to the appraisals potentially conflicted with the statute. Accordingly, I believe it's essential that the City Manager provide City Council with an opinion, based on advice of a qualified attorney and/or appraiser, as to whether the appraisals use of a "hypothetical" house fails to comply with ORS 195.332. The appraiser indicated this could be determined by what is technically known as a "desk review" of the submitted appraisals and would likely cost between $750 and $1,000 dollars. Regards, Paul _________________ 1 On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:23 PM, HANSEN Alissa H <Alissa.H.Hansen@ci.eugene.or.us> wrote: Paul Inresponsetoyourletter,pleasenotethatthedocumentsthathavebeenscannedtodateareavailableviathe website.WealreadydeterminedthatApril1isthe180 th day.ItwillbenotedintheAISfortheCityCouncil.TheCity hasnotadoptedproceduresforprocessingMeasure49claimsandwillberelyingonthestatute.IhaveacallintoDLCD toconfirmiftheyhaveretainedpersonstoreviewappraisalsandifso,ifthatwouldextendtoMeasure49claimsthat donotinvolveaDLCDadoptedlanduseregulation.YourrequestregardingthehearinghasbeenreceivedbytheCity Manager. Alissa Hansen|Principal Planner EugenePlanning Division|Land Use Planning 99 West 10 th Avenue|Eugene Oregon 97401 Phone541.682.5508|Fax541.682.5572 Messages to and from this e-mail address may be available to the public under Oregon Public Records Law From:PaulConte\[mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com\] Sent:Thursday,January05,201711:41AM To:HANSENAlissaH<Alissa.H.Hansen@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc:*EugeneMayor,CityCouncil,andCityManager<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Subject:*Timesensitive*TestimonyandrequestsreMeasure49claim Alissa, Please acknowledge receipt of the attached letter as testimony in the Measure49claimby Chad & Katie Wilson. I would appreciate a response to the requests as soon as you're able Thank you, Paul 2 _________________ 3 HANSEN Alissa H From:Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 06, 2017 6:18 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Cc:*Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Subject:Further testimony on Wilson Measure 49 claim Alissa, Please enter this e-mail into the record. I apologize with the multiple e-mails; however, I'm hoping this will allow staff as much time as remains to produce your report. Just when I think I've uncovered most of the problems, something new pops up. In this case, I read an excerpt (item #4) from the staff completeness letter that said, in part: "Under staffs \[sic\]review, it appears that a primary residential use and a secondary dwelling were allowed were allowed under the previous regulation, and that the same uses are allowed under Ordinance No. 20526." Staff's conclusion was correct. However, for some reason, staff did a "180" after Bill Kloos responded that "... under the new regulation, the existing dwelling would have to be decommissioned as a secondary dwelling. This impacts the market value, as reflected in the appraisals." Kloos's comments sidestepped the staff conclusion. The existing structure is currently the primary dwelling and has never been certified as an SDU, so his comment is false and misleading that it would have to be "decommissioned as a secondary dwelling." Just the opposite is true: To use the structure as an SDU, the owner would have to go through an approval process to have it "commissioned" as an SDU in the first place. Furthermore, the appraisals did not mention "decommissioning" in any way, and it is false that a "decommissioning" would impact market value. More importantly, nothing in Kloos's statement addresses the correct point that staff made: Under the current regulations, the owner could develop a primary dwelling and an SDU through a number of different, legal and practical means. For example: A new structure with an attached or detached (new) SDU could be built; the existing structure could be maintained as, or expanded into, a primary dwelling and a new SDU built; the existing structure could be altered to comply with current regulations. Unfortunately, after getting it right at first, staff went off track in the AIS stated went off track, apparently following Kloos's misleading statements. "Stated another way, prior the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Claimants could have converted the existing residence to a detached secondary dwelling unit and constructed another, primary, residence on the subject property. In fact, in June of 2014, Claimants sought a building permit to do just that. However, because Ordinance No. 20526 went into effect on April 12, 2014 (approximately two months prior to the Claimants seeking a 1 building permit), the City could not issue Claimants the building permit to convert the existing residence into a secondary dwelling." ORS 195.305(1) specifies that the identified regulation must "restrict the residential use." But Ordinance No. 20526 does not restrict the owner from having a primary dwelling and an SDU. It just prevents him from turning a primary dwelling into an SDU, and that's not covered by ORS 195.305(1) On the face of it, the applicant has not shown that he is restricted or prohibited from use of the property for an SDU, as would be required. There really is no need to consider the application beyond this failure to meet statutory requirements. However, even if the effect of the cited regulation were to be interpreted as falling under ORS 195.300 et seq., the appraisals don't even consider the correct potential development. The "pre" appraisal considers a "hypothetical" primary house and an SDU (neither of which existed at the time), and the "post" appraisal considered a "hypothetical" primary house (rather then the one that exists) and an accessory building. In fact, the appraisal of the current market value should have been based on the existing structure and the fact that a "full-sized" single-family home and an SDU (attached or detached) could be developed on the lot. Thus, this demonstrates another reason that the appraisals don't comply with the requirements of ORS 195.300 et seq. to justify a compensation claim. -- Paul _________________ 2 HANSEN Alissa H From:Carolyn Jacobs <carolyn.i.jacobs@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 10, 2017 2:34 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Subject:Testimony re: Measure 49 Claim Attachments:Measure 49 Final.odt Alissa - please enter the attached testimony into the record and make available to the Mayor, City Council and City Manager. Thank you. --- Carolyn Jacobs 1 th Testimony for Measure 49 Claim Regarding 1777 E. 30 Ave. January 10, 2017 Mayor, City Council and City Manager: th The following testimony is presented as proof that the Measure 49 Claim for 1777 E. 30 Ave is without merit because it fails to demonstrate any restriction whatsoever in the use of the property and is based on unsound and unprofessional appraisals as well and that the claim also singles out the area specific code standards of E.C. 9.2751(17)(c)9 as limiting the value and use of the property in question though all evidence shows to this to be false and thereby misleading. A) . Prior to 2014 R1 code amendments, the property in question could only correctly have been appraised as a large lot (27,878 sq') with a very small (864 sq' according to both the permit applications submitted by the claimant to the City and as described in the hypothetical appraisals) primary residential unit (over an accessary garage/shop). That's all. While the property was large enough to have also had a secondary dwelling unit (SDU) it did not have one. Since the existing structure was the only structure on the property it could not, by definition, have been an SDU (nor did it even meet the 800 sq' limitation spelled out in the City prior code to 2014). In determining the value of the property in 2013 an appropriate appraisal should have compared this property to similarly large lots with very small homes. After adoption of the 2014 R1 code amendments the potential use of the property was unchanged. It could have included both a primary house and an SDU. The preexisting structure could have been enlarged or remodeled to become a very different looking primary residence and another structure, 800sq' or less, could have been built. The other option would as is common practice city-wide have been the construction of a new primary residence and, , modifiedcurrent the original preexisting structure could have been to meet SDU standards. This of course remains the current situation. use To summarize, the adoption of R1 code amendments in 2014 had no effect on the of this property. Before, and after, this date the property could accommodate a primary residential unit and an SDU. This was confirmed by Anne Davies, Assistant City Attorney in a memo from a primary residential April 20, 2016 when she wrote that “Under Staff's review, it appears that use and a secondary dwelling were allowed under the previous regulation, and that the same uses are allowed under Ordinance N. 20526 ,” the 2014 R1 code amendments. For the reasons spelled out above, the existing building was never an SDU, never met the standards for an SDU and would not meet the standards today. The option to modify it to bring it into SDU compliance and build a new house was there before the 2014 code amendments and is still there. Therefore, the Measure's claim that "... under the new regulation, the existing dwelling would have to be decommissioned as a secondary dwelling. . . impacts the market value, as reflected in the appraisals." is clearly intended to mislead the reader as there would be no decommissioning involved in any legal scenario as there was/is no secondary dwelling. ” And while ORS 195.305(1) specifies that the regulation must “restrict the residential useit is use clear that the residential was in no way whatsoever affected by any 2014 code amendments. B)use . Despite lacking a sound argument for the claimants having been restricted in the of their property the claim proceeds to provide appraisals of very questionable value and in an unacceptable manner. A group of appraisals was entered into the record and when the group didn't meet the requirement for having been done one year before and one year after code changes the dates on all the appraisals were simply changed and resubmitted. The results were appraisals for any new dates but no changes in value number of properties that were identical two years apart – . This is absolutely not credible. Of course, reentering the same appraised value with a new date without an explanation should have immediately raised a red flag for staff. Beside the fact that none of the comparables were large properties with small residential units, many of the comparables were peculiar, if not wrong choices in other ways such as the location in an R3 zone for one and location outside the UGB (and in the Springfield school district!) for another. No appraisal was included for a very similar neighboring property which did sell in th the years under consideration (1781 E. 30 Ave). That said, a convincing argument could have been made if the claim had provided an equal insideoutside number of (similar) comps the area specific neighborhood and the same area and then shown that over the two-year period those outside the area had increased in value and those within had either remained the same or decreased. Given the so-called evidence provided, this claim completely fails to support the argument for loss of value due to area specific code amendment 9.2751(17)(c)9. A complete analysis of residential property values would also be expected to look at all factors market trends at play in the real estate market.Failure to take into account the many at play would alone invalidate any conclusion as to what caused fluctuations in a property's appraised value. It is also highly unusual to base the claimants' pre and post property values on hypothetical primary residences and hypothetical SDU's. Common practice would assume values based on existing structures. According to ORS 195.332 “The fair market value of property does not include any prospective value or possible value based upon future expenditures and improvements.” Therefore, a set of appraisals dependent on the use of several hypotheticals would be rendered invalid. City Councilors should insist at minimum on an independent appraisal review. C) . The use of 9.2751(17)(c)9 (area specific code addressing height/interior setback requirements) was apparently intended to mislead anyone studying this case. While the goal may have been to cast doubt on the fairness of area specific code standards, the complete property would picture reveals that without the area specific code amendments the claimants' have been required to meet city wide standards and the city-wide standards are in some cases more limiting. Consider the following: The city wide equivalent code section 9.2751(17)(b)5 (addressing height/interior setback requirements) contains the same language as the area specific for parts a and b. However, part c SDU over an accessory building as in 9.2751(17)(b)5 has a entitled “adjustments for an th 9.8030(34(b) 9.8030(34)(b) ” (exactly the situation at 1775 E 30).allows for the conversion all of of a legally established building to a secondary dwelling but requires compliance with three “The secondary dwelling following conditions. The second of the three conditions states: is limited to 600 square feet in total building square footage and 15 feet in height.” An additional city wide standard 9.2751(3)d which states that “An additional 7 feet of building not permitted in the R-1 zone height allowed for roof slopes of 6:12 or steeper in the R-1. . .is for secondary dwellings, accessory buildings …” would also have affected the claimants' ability to designate the existing building as an SDU without serious modifications. In a Measure 49 claim such as this City Councilors should again insist on an independent inspection of the property to accurately determine measurements of height, setback, square footage etc. Accepting those of the claimant is not satisfactory. In conclusion, one is left to contemplate what the motivation might have been for singling out area specific the 2014 R1 code changes as the claim fails to prove them responsible for a real or hypothetical reduction in property value. For failing to prove usage restrictions, for failure to provide legitimate appraisals, and for failure to prove a reduction in property value this claim must be denied. Submitted January 10, 2017 by Carolyn Jacobs 2040 Agate St. Eugene, Oregon 97403 HANSEN Alissa H From:Bill Aspegren <aspegren@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 10, 2017 3:03 PM To:HANSEN Alissa H Cc:ASPEGREN Bill (SMTP) Subject:Measure 49 Testimony Attachments:M49 Testimony V1.docx Alissa,attachedismyMeasure49testimony.PleasemakesureitispassedalongtotheMayor,CityCouncilandCity Manager. Ifyoushouldhaveanyproblemsopeningthedocumentcontactme. Thanks, BillAspegren 1 To:Mayor,CityCouncilandCityManager From:BillAspegren th Subject:TestimonyregardingtheźƌƭƚƓƭMeasure49Claimat1777E.30Avenue th TheWilsonsownpropertyat1777E.30Avenue.Theyclaimtheycannotbuildahouseontheir propertyandatthesametimeconvertthecurrentlyexistingstructureintoaSecondaryDwellingUnit (SDU).TheybelievethisisbecausetheR1codechanges,inordinancenumber20526,effectiveApril12, 2014,specificallyEC9.2751(17)(c)9,SDUheight/setbackchanges,nolongerallowedtheexisting structuretoqualifyasaSDU.Becauseofthesechanges,theirpropertylost$60,000invalueandthey havefiledaMeasure49claim,askingforaheight/setbackexemptionratherthanmonetary compensation. Itismycontentiontheclaimhasnomeritandshouldberejected.Thisconclusionisbasedonthe followingpoints,whichIwillexpandonaspartofthistestimony: th Noevidencewaspresentedthatthestructureat1777E.30Avenuecouldhavebeenalegal SDUpriortoApril12,2014.IbelieveitcouldnothavequalifiedasaSDUwhenitwasbuilt,by theWilsons,in2004oranytimebetweenthenandtheeffectivedateoftheR1changes. ptionthattheexisting Thehypotheticalappraisalswerebasedontheincorrectassum structurecouldhavebeenalegalSDUpriortoApril12,2014.Theappraisalsdidnotanalyze theeffectofthehousingcrisis,recession,foreclosuresandpartialrecoveryoftheoverallmarket onhomeprices.NoevidencewaspresentedthattheR1changesrestrictedtheźƌƭƚƓƭ residentialuseoftheproperty. TheCityCouncilunanimouslyapprovedtheR1changesMarch12,2014,afterunanimousapprovalby thePlanningCommission.TheCouncilshouldbecautiousaboutgrantingexceptions,withoutconclusive evidence,therebysettingaveryconcerningprecedentthatwillhaveconsequenceswellbeyondtheR1 changes. DidtheexistingstructureeverqualifyasaSDU? th Thestructureat1777E.30Avenuewaspermitted(040122301)andbuiltin2004.Itresidesonthe southportionofa.64acrelotthatisbisectedbyaprivateaccessroad.TheCitynolongerhadoriginal plansforthebuilding,describedinthepermitasaͻbĻǞƭŷƚƦΉŷƚƒĻͼ͵However,Ididobtaintwo drawingsofthestructuredatedJune15,2014.Theseweresubmittedaspartofpermit(140338001) foranewsinglefamilyhometobebuiltonthenorthportionofthelotandconversionoftheexisting structuretoaSDU.Thepermitwasneverissued. TheCityreceivedtherequestforanewhomeJune16,2014,twomonthsaftertheR1changesbecame effective.AtthattimetheexistingstructurewasnotclassifiedasaSDU,anddidnotqualifyasaSDU underthecodechanges.ThequestionisdidthebuildingqualifyasaSDUbeforeordinancenumber 20526becameeffective?Ifitdidnot,thereisnobasisforaMeasure49claim. βЊβ Councilordinancenumber20270amended9ǒŭĻƓĻƭcodeasfollows. 9.2741SpecialUseLimitationsforTable9.2740. (2)SecondaryDwellings.SecondarydwellingsareonlypermittedinR1andaresubjecttothe standardsbelow. (a)Secondarydwellingsthatarewithinthesamebuildingastheprimarydwelling shallcomplywithallthefollowing: 1.Thedwellingshallnotexceed800squarefeetunlessoccupyingthefull storyofamultistorystructurewithgroundfloorresidentialuse. Ͷ (b)Inadditiontothestandardsinsubsection(a)ofthissection,detached secondarydwellingsshallcomplywiththefollowing: Ͷ 2.Iflocatedwithin20feetofapropertyline,themaximumbuildingheight shallnotexceed15feet. Ͷ TheordinancewasapprovedbytheCouncilandMayor November25,2002 andbecameeffective30 dayslater. th Basedontheplansandordinancenumber20270,thestructureat1777E.30Avenueexceedsthe800 squarefootlimitandthereforewouldnothavequalifiedasaSDUpriortotheR1codeamendments.As furtherproof,eachofthefourhypotheticalappraisalsdescribes,inthesupplementaladdendums,the existingstructureasfollows: ͻŷĻsubjectalsofeaturesadetached864sfseparatelegaldwellingbuiltinЋЉЉЍ͵ͼ AreviewoftheJune14,2014plansshowsthe864squarefootdwellingunit.Itisnotandneverwould havebeenlegalasaSDU.However,theplansstatethesquarefootageas760.Thiswasarrivedatby improperlyexcludinga13by8footmechanicalroomwherethefurnaceandwaterheaterarelocated. Ifonlyinteriorlivingspaceisconsidered,thesquarefootageisstill808.Noneofthisevenconsidersthe 480squarefeetofunfinishedatticspaceadjacenttoandonlyaccessiblefromthedwelling. Theexistingstructure,wastoolargetobeconsideredalegalSDUbeforetheR1changeswereinplace. Thismeanstheclaimhasnomeritandshouldberejected. Therearealsoquestionsabouttheheightoftheexistingstructureanditsdistancefromthelotlines. ThismayalsodisqualifyitasaSDU.Theelevationdrawingdoesnotgivesufficientinformationabout gradetoaccuratelyestablishaͻŭƩğķĻreferencedatumƌźƓĻͼfromwhichtoMeasureheight.Alsofurther researchisneededtodetermineifthestructureislessthan20feetfromanadjacentlotline. th Noindependentonsiteinspectionof1777E.30AvenuehasbeendonebytheCitytoconfirmthe squarefootageorheight. βЋβ Didthehypotheticalappraisalsconclusivelyshowtherewasareductioninpropertyvalue? th Asstatedabove,thehypotheticalappraisalsincorrectlyassumedthatthestructureat1777E.30 AvenuecouldhavebeenalegalSDUpriortotheR1codechanges.ThiserrorinvalidatestheͻĬĻŅƚƩĻͼ appraisalsthatstatethemarketvaluewas$470,000. Thereareseveralotherconcernswiththehypotheticalappraisalsthatcastdoubtontheiraccuracy. Hereisdetailrelatingtotheseproblems: Thefirstsetofhypotheticalappraisalsusedincorrectappraisaldates.TheCityrequestedthat theappraisalsberesubmittedusingthecorrectdates.Theywereresubmittedwiththedates changedbyayear,yettheappraisedvalueswereidentical.Fewchangeshadbeenmadeand therewasnoexplanationwhythemarketvalueswerethesamefromoneyeartothenext. Aftercodechangeappraisals,3/12/2014changedto3/12/2015,appraisedvaluefor o both$410,000. Beforecodechangeappraisals,3/12/2012changedto3/12/2013.Appraisedvaluefor o both$470,000. Fivehomesallresidingonthesameshortprivateroadweresoldrecently.Eventhoughnoneof thesehomeshadSDUsnonewereusedforcomparisons.Onlyonewassoldduringtheperiod 2013to2015.ItisaveryclosematchtotheźƌƭƚƓƭhypotheticalappraisalaftercodechanges. th 1781E.30,built2004,.6acres,2732sq.ft.,5bdrm,3ba,Sold06/13/14for$465,000, o $170/sq.ft.,Previoussales2005$419,900and2004$90,000 Onepropertywasusedtojustifythelowpropertyvalue(3/12/2014)andlaterusedtojustify thehighpropertyvalue(3/12/2013).However,inoneappraisal(3/12/2014)theƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤƭ ͻ/ƚƓķźƷźƚƓͼwasconsideredͻDƚƚķͼandnodollaradjustmentwasmade,butinanother appraisal(3/12/2013)theͻ/ƚƓķźƷźƚƓͼwaschangedtoͻ!ǝĻƩğŭĻDƚƚķͼand$41,500wasadded totheprice.Noexplanationwasgivenforthechange. ThereducedpropertyvaluewasentirelyattributedtoimplementationoftheR1changes limitingSDUs.Theeffectofthehousingcrisis,followedbytherecessionandsubsequent recovery,onmarketvalueswasnotexplainedorconsidered.Anarrayoffactorsthataffected propertyvaluesshouldhavebeenpartoftheappraisals. ORS195.332,states:"Thefairmarketvalueofpropertydoesnotincludeanyprospectivevalue, speculativevalueorpossiblevaluebaseduponfutureexpendituresandimprovements." ThismeanstheappraisercannotspeculateontheƦƩƚƦĻƩƷǤƭvaluebyaddingahypotheticalnewhome totheappraisal.Thisfurtherinvalidatestheappraisals. ORS195.305(1)specifiesthattheregulationmust"restricttheresidentialuse." InalettertoBillKloos,datedApril20,2016,regardingͻ/ƚƒƦƌĻƷĻƓĻƭƭReviewforMeasure49Claim, ChadandKatieźƌƭƚƓͼͲAnneC.Davies,AssistantCityAttorneynotedtheaboveregulationandstated: ͻ ƓķĻƩ{ƷğŅŅƭreview,itappearsthataprimaryresidentialuseandasecondarydwellingwere allowedunderthepreviousregulation,andthatthesameusesareallowedunderOrdinanceNo. ЋЉЎЋЏ͵ͼ\[theR1codechanges\] InaresponsetotheabovestatementfromBillKloos,inamemodatedJuly25,2016,hestated: βЌβ th TheJuly25statementsaremisleadingsincetheexistingstructurecouldneverhavebeenalegalSDU. However,intheźƌƭƚƓƭcasetheirlotislargeenoughtobuildafullsizeddwellingandremodelthe existingstructureintoalegalSDU. TheR1codeamendmentshavenotrestrictedtheresidentialuseoftheźƌƭƚƓƭproperty. Putdifferently,bothbeforeandaftertheR1changestherewasnothingtopreventtheWilsonsfrom th havingafullsizeddwellingandaSDUontheirproperty.Thiswasreinforcedbythe/źƷǤƭApril20letter anddemonstratestheclaimhasnomeritandshouldberejected. CouldtheexistingstructurequalifyasaSDUwiththeheight/setbackexemption? TheMeasure49claimonlyasksforanexemptionfromEC9.2751(17)(c)9forheight/setback.Atleast twoothersectionsofthecodewouldpreventthebuildingfrombeingconsideredaSDU. First:EC9.2751(3)(d)states: Anadditional7feetofbuildingheightisallowedforroofslopesof6:12orsteeperintheR1,R 2,R3andR4zones,exceptthatthisadditionalbuildingheightallowanceisnotpermittedin theR1zoneforsecondarydwellings,accessorybuildingsordevelopmentonalleyaccesslots. Thebuildinginquestionisatleast22feetfromthegradereferencedatumlinetothepeakoftheroof.A SDUmustbelessthan18feettallifitismorethan20feetfromapropertyline,15feetifcloser. Second:EC9.2751(17)(a)2states: BuildingSize.Thetotalbuildingsquarefootageofasecondarydwellingshallnotexceed10 percentofthetotallotareaor800squarefeet,whicheverissmaller.Totalbuildingsquare footageismeasuredattheexteriorperimeterwallsandisdefinedasallsquarefootageinsideof thedwelling,including,butnotlimitedtohallways,entries,closets,utilityrooms,stairwaysand bathrooms. Thetotalsquarefootageofthebuildingis2,208,notincluding480squarefeetofunfinishedatticspace. th Basedontheaboveinformationthebuildingat1777E.30AvenuecouldnotqualifyasaSDUevenwith theMeasure49height/setbackexemption. βЍβ Conclusion TheCitydidnotrequestindependentappraisalsorevenanindependentappraisalreview.Thisshould bestandardpracticeforMeasure49claims.Also,thereshouldhavebeenanindependentinspectionof theproperty. NoonefromtheCityvisitedthepropertytoverifygrade,setbacks,heightorsquarefootage.Itwouldbe wisefortheCitytodefineaprocess/procedureforfutureMeasure49claims,includingfeestocoverthe abovementionedindependentreviews. IhavedocumentedmanyproblemswiththisMeasure49claimandurgetheCityCounciltorejectit. BillAspegren βЎβ ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦Ȁ ! /±£¨ ¢¤ #®¢¤±¨¦ ³§¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ #®£¤ǿ !¬¤£¨¦ 3¤¢³¨®² ΗȁΓΐΔǾ ΗȁΓΑΔ £ ΗȁΓΒΏ ®¥ ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ #®£¤Ǿ ΐΘΖΐǾ a£ 2¤¯¤ «¨¦ ³§¤ 3´²¤³ $ ³¤ -¤¤³¨¦ $ ³¤Ȁ * ´ ±¸ ΐΖǾ ΑΏΐΖ !¦¤£ )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 2 $¤¯ ±³¬¤³Ȁ 0« ¨¦ £ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ 2 ¢§¤««¤ .¨¢§®« ² www.eugene-or.gov #®³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-5495 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¨² ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ ¨² ®¯¯®±³´¨³¸ ¥®± ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¥¤¤£¡ ¢ª ³® ³§¤ %´¦¤¤ City #®´¢¨« ® /±£¨ ¢¤ ³§ ³ ££² « ¦´ ¦¤ ³® ³§¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ ¢®£¤ ³® ££±¤²² ¢ ±¡® ¬®®·¨£¤ « ±¬²Ǿ ¤«¤¢³±¨¢ « ²¸²³¤¬²Ǿ ¯¯«¨ ¢¤²Ǿ £ ± ³²ȁ 4§¤ /±£¨ ¢¤ ±¤¬®µ¤² ³§¤ ²´²¤³ ¢« ´²¤ £ ££² « ¦´ ¦¤ ±¤°´¨±¨¦ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ¦¤± ±¤µ¨¤¶ ³§¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ #®£¤ ¯±®¦± ¬ £ ±¤¯®±³ ³® #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¤µ¤±¸ ³§±¤¤ ¸¤ ±²ȁ !¥³¤± ³§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦Ǿ ³§¤ #®´¢¨« ¨² ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ³® ³ ª¤ ¢³¨® ® * ´ ±¸ ΑΒǾ ΑΏΐΖȁ )¥ ® ¥´±³§¤± ¢³¨® ¨² ³ ª¤ ³§¤ code’s ®±£¨ ¢¤ ¶¨«« ²´²¤³ ® - ±¢§ ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖ £ ¡¤ ±¤¯¤ «¤£ȁ BACKGROUND 4§¤ %´¦¤¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ #®£¤ ¶ ² £®¯³¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¨ ΑΏΏΓ ³® ²¤³ ¬¨¨¬´¬ § ¡¨³ ¡¨«¨³¸ ²³ £ ±£² ¥®± ±¤³ « §®´²¨¦ȁ 7§¤ ³§¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ ¢®£¤ ¶ ² ¢±¤ ³¤£Ǿ ¨³ ¨¢«´£¤d ¨¨³¨ « ²´²¤³ £ ³¤ ®¥ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΒΐǾ ΑΏΏΗȁ 3¨¢¤ ³§ ³ ³¨¬¤, ³§¤ ²´²¤³ £ ³¤ § ² ¡¤¤ ¤·³¤£¤£ three ³¨¬¤² ¡¸ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨«ȁ #´±±¤³«¸Ǿ %´¦¤¤Ȍ² 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ ¢®£¤ ¨² ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ³® ²´²¤³ ® - ±¢§ ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖ ¨¥ ® ¢³¨® ¨² ³ ª¤ȁ !³ ³§¤ $¤¢¤¬¡¤± ΖǾ ΑΏΐΕ ¶®±ª ²¤²²¨® #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« £¨±¤¢³¤£ ³§¤ #¨³¸ - ¦¤± ³® ¯±¤¯ ±¤ ®±£¨ ¢¤ ³® remove ³§¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ #®£¤ ²´²¤³ £ ³¤ £ ¬¤£ ³§¤ ¯±®µ¨²¨®² ³® ¨¢®±¯®± ³¤ ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨®² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ (®´²¨¦ 0®«¨¢¸ "® ±£ Ȩ!³³ ¢§¬¤³ "ȩȁ 4§¤ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ ¨² ¢®¢¤±¨¦ ³§¤ ³³ ¢§¤£ £± ¥³ ®±£¨ ¢¤ ¶§¨¢§ ±¤¬®µ¤² ³§¤ ²´²¤³ ¢« ´²¤ £ ££² « ¦´ ¦¤ ³® ³§¤ 2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ #®£¤ ³® ££±¤²² ¢ ±¡® ¬®®·¨£¤ « ±¬²Ǿ ¤«¤¢³±¨¢ « ²¸²³¤¬²Ǿ ¯¯«¨ ¢¤² £ ± ³²ȁ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¨² ²¢§¤£´«¤£ ³® ³ ª¤ ¢³¨® ® ³§¤ ®±£¨ ¢¤ ® * ´ ±¸ ΑΒǾ ΑΏΐΖȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#)%3 #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« 'oals 3 ¥¤ #®¬¬´¨³¸Ȁ ! ¢®¬¬´¨³¸ ¶§¤±¤ «« ¯¤®¯«¤ ±¤ ² ¥¤Ǿ µ «´¤£ £ ¶¤«¢®¬¤ȁ 3´²³ ¨ ¡«¤ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³Ȁ ! ¢®¬¬´¨³¸ ³§ ³ ¬¤¤³² ¨³² ¯±¤²¤³ ¤µ¨±®¬¤³ «Ǿ ¤¢®®¬¨¢ £ ²®¢¨ « ¤¤£² ¶¨³§®´³ ¢®¬¯±®¬¨²¨¦ ³§¤ ¡¨«¨³¸ ®¥ ¥´³´±¤ ¦¤¤± ³¨®² ³® ¬¤¤³ ³§¤¨± ®¶ needs. %¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤Ǿ !¢¢®´³ ¡«¤ -´¨¢¨¯ « '®µ¤±¬¤³Ȁ ! ¦®µ¤±¬¤³ ³§ ³ ¶®±ª² ®¯¤«¸Ǿ ¢®«« ¡®± ³¨µ¤«¸Ǿ £ ¥ ¨±«¸ ¶¨³§ ³§¤ ¢®¬¬´¨³¸ ³® ¢§¨¤µ¤ ¬¤ ²´± ¡«¤ £ ¯®²¨³¨µ¤ ®´³¢®¬¤² £ ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¤¥¥¤¢³¨µ¤Ǿ ¤¥¥¨¢¨¤³ ²¤±µ¨¢¤²ȁ %µ¨²¨® %´¦¤¤ 0¨«« ±² 0±®µ¨£¤ ¥¥®±£ ¡«¤ §®´²¨¦ ¥®± «« ¨¢®¬¤ «¤µ¤«² 0±®¬®³¤ ¢®¬¯ ¢³ ´±¡ £¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ £ ¤¥¥¨¢¨¤³ ³± ²¯®±³ ³¨® ®¯³¨®² 0±®³¤¢³Ǿ ±¤¯ ¨±Ǿ £ ¤§ ¢¤ ¤¨¦§¡®±§®®£ «¨µ ¡¨«¨³¸ RECOMMENDATION 4§¨² ¨² ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ȁ 4§¤±¤ ¨² ® #¨³¸ - ¦¤± ±¤¢®¬¬¤£ ³¨®ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. .®¤ǿ ³§¨² ¨² ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ȁ ATTACHMENTS A.! /±£¨ ¢¤ 2¤¬®µ¨¦ ³§¤ 3´²¤³ $ ³¤ £ !¬¤£¨¦ 3¤¢³¨®² ΗȁΓΐΔǾ ΗȁΓΑΔ £ ΗȁΓΒΏ B.2¤³ « (®´²¨¦ #®¬¬¨³³¤¤ recommendation ³® (®´²¨¦ 0®«¨¢¸ "® ±£ &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ 2 ¢§¤««¤ .¨¢§®« ² 4¤«¤¯§®¤Ȁ 541-682-5495 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: rachelle.d.nicholas@ci.eugene.or.us ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE RENTAL HOUSING CODE; AMENDING SECTIONS 8.415, 8.425 AND 8.430 OFTHE EUGENE CODE, 1971,AND REPEALING THE SUNSET DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: A. Sections 8.400 through 8.440, and 8.995 of the Eugene Code, 1971, (“the Rental Housing Code”) were adopted by Ordinance No. 20329 on November 22, 2004. Ordinance No. 20329 also provided that the Ordinance and the Rental Housing Code be repealed effective December 31, 2008 B. Since its initial adoption in 2004,the Rental Housing Code sunset date has been extended and its provisions amended. The most recent amendment was adopted by Ordinance No. 20494 on June 11, 2012. The most recent extension was adopted by Ordinance No. 20568 on September 26, 2016, extending the sunset date to March 1, 2017. C. The Council has determined that the Rental Housing Code sunset date should be removed andthat revisions recommended by the Housing Policy Board be incorporated intothe Rental Housing Code. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 8.415 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding the definitionsof “Carbon Monoxide Alarm” and “Carbon Monoxide Source” and by repealing the definition of “Plumbing code” to provide as follows: 8.415Rental Housing –Definitions. For purposes of sections 8.400 through 8.440 of this code, the following words and phrases mean: Carbon Monoxide Alarm. A device that: a.Detects carbon monoxide; b.Produces a distinctive audible alert when carbon monoxide is detected; c.Conforms to State Fire Marshal rules; d.Is listed by Underwriters Laboratories or any other nationally recognized testing laboratory or an equivalent organization; and e.Operates as a distinct unit or as two or more single station units wired to operate in conjunction with each other. Ordinance -Page 1of 5 ATTACHMENT A Carbon Monoxide Source. A heater, fireplace, appliance or cooking source that uses coal, kerosene, petroleum products, wood or other fuels that emit carbon monoxide as a by-product of combustion, or an attached garage with an opening that communicates directly with a living space. Essential Services. Heat, plumbing, hot and cold running water, gas, electricity, light fixtures, locks for exterior doors, latches for windows and any cooking appliance or refrigerator supplied or required to be supplied by the landlord; and any other service or habitability obligation imposed by the rental agreement or ORS 90.320, the lack or violation of which creates a serious threat to the tenant’s health, safety or property or makes the dwelling unit unfit for occupancy. Plumbing code. \[The current edition of the State of Oregon Plumbing Specialty Code or Oregon Residential Specialty Code.\] Section 2. Section 8.425 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended by adding new subsections (7), (8), (9) and (10), and renumbering current subsection (7) to subsection (11)to provide as follows: 8.425Rental Housing –Standards. (7)Carbon Monoxide Alarms. Every dwelling unit that contains a carbon monoxide source shall be equipped with at least one approved and properly functioning carbon monoxide alarm installed and maintained in accordance with State Fire Marshal rules, applicable requirements of the state building code, and the Oregon Revised Statutes.A dwelling unit that is located within a structure that contains a carbon monoxide source and is connected to the room in which the carbon monoxide source is located by a door, ductwork or a ventilation shaft is considered to contain a carbon monoxide source. (8)Electrical. (a)Electrical systems, including electrical outlets, light fixtures and light switches, shall be in good working order. (b)Electrical systems shall conform to applicable law at the time of installation. Repairs must be permanent rather than temporary and shall be through generally accepted electrical methods. (9)Appliances. All appliances that are furnished by the landlord, including, but not limited to, refrigerator, range, air conditioner, Ordinance -Page 2of 5 ATTACHMENT A dishwasher, microwave, clothes washer and dryer, must be in goodworking order and shall be maintained by the landlord. (10)Rats.Every dwelling unit must be maintained free of rats. At a minimum, the landlord must comply with thestandards set forth in section6.015 of this code. (7) 11Interpretations. (a)The citymanager is empowered to render interpretations of sections 8.400 through 8.440 of this code. (b)Such interpretations shall be consistent with the purpose of this code. Section 3. Subsections (2)(d) and (5) of Section 8.430 of the Eugene Code, 1971, areamended to provide as follows: 8.430Rental Housing –Enforcement . (2) Complaint. (d)Complaints shall be processed by the city manager. The city manager shall adopt rules pursuant to section 2.019 of this code that specify the procedure to be followed in processing complaints. Before initiating an investigation under subsection (3) of this section, the city manager shall: 1.Confirm that the complainant has standing to file a complaint; 2.Confirm that the subject of the complaint could be a violation of this code; 3.Except for complaints regarding lack of essential services, \[C\]confirm that the owner or the owner’s agent has had ten days since mailing of the written notice by the tenant to respond to the complaint; 4.For complaints involvinglack of essential services, confirm that the owner or owner’s agent has had 48 hoursfrom the time the tenant provided written noticeto respond to the complaint; and \[45.\]Provide notice to the owner or the owner’s agent of the complaint per written procedures. (5) Notices and Orders. (a)For valid complaints, the city manager shall issue an order to the owner or the owner’s agent. The notice and order shall include the following: 1.Address and unit number if applicable; 2.A statement that the citymanager has found the premises to be in violation of section 8.425 of this code as alleged in the complaint; 3.A description of the violation; Ordinance -Page 3of 5 ATTACHMENT A 4.A deadline for completing repairs of ten days, unless the city manager determines that: a.Repairs are neededto remedy the lack of essential services. Upon making this determination, the city manager shall fix a deadline for completing the repairs that is reasonablein the circumstances, but in no event shall the deadline for completion be more than 48 hoursfrom issuance of the notice and order; or b.\[t\]The necessary repairs of non-essential services cannot be completed within the ten day period. If the city manager makes such a determination, the owner or owner’s agent shall submit a compliance schedule acceptable to the city within ten days; 5.A statement advising the owner or the owner’s agent that if the required repairs are not completed by the deadline stated in the notice and order, the city manager may: a.Issue an administrative civil penalty, orinitiate a prosecution in municipal court, or both; and b.Initiate action to recover all city costs associated with the processing of the complaint, investigation and the resolution of the issue. 6.A statement that the owner or the owner’s agent may appeal the notice and order as specified in section 8.435 of this code; and; 7.The date after which a reinspection will be scheduled. (b)The city manager shall mail the order, and any amended or supplemental notice and order, to the tenant and to the owneror the owner’s agent by first class mail.If the complaint involves lack of essential services, the city managershallprovide such notice and order by e-mail, phone, and/or personal delivery. Section 4. The sunset date of the Rental Housing Code (Sections 8.400 through 8.440, and 8.995 of the Eugene Code, 1971) isremoved. Section 5 .The City Manager shall review the City’s Rental Housing Code program and report to City Council every three years with the results of the review. Section 6 . The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the consent of the City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained herein, Ordinance -Page 4of 5 ATTACHMENT A or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended or repealed herein. Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this ______ day of January, 2017._____ day of January, 2017. City RecorderMayor Ordinance -Page 5of 5 ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL IS A GENDA TEM UMMARY 0´¡«¨¢ (¤ ±¨¦Ȁ ! /±£¨ ¢¤ !««®¶¨¦ New 2¤¢±¤ ³¨® « - ±¨©´ & ¢¨«¨³¸ ³® ,®¢ ³¤ ,¤²² 4§ ΐΏΏΏ ¥¤¤³ ¥±®¬ ,®®ª¨¦ '« ²² .¤¶ 2® £² 3¢§®®« -¤¤³¨¦ $ ³¤Ȁ * ´ ±¸ ΐΖǾ ΑΏΐ7 !¦¤£ )³¤¬ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 3 $¤¯ ±³¬¤³Ȁ P« ¨¦ £ $¤µ¤«®¯¬¤³ 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ -¨ª¤ -¢+¤±±®¶ www.eugene-or.gov #®³ ¢³ 4¤«¤¯§®¤ .´¬¡¤±Ȁ 541-682-5288 )335% 34!4%-%.4 4§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¶¨«« §®«£ ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ £ ¢®²¨£¤± adoption of ®±£¨ ¢¤ ³® ¯±®µ¨£¤ ¤·¢¤¯³¨® per ²³ ³¤ ²³ ³´³¤ ±¤¦ ±£¨¦ ³§¤ ¬¨¨¬´¬ £¨²³ ¢¤ ¡¤³¶¤¤ ¬ ±¨©´ £¨²¯¤² ±¸ £ ,®®ª¨¦ '« ²² .¤¶ 2® £² 3¢§®®«. BACKGROUND '« ²²2®®³²Ǿ ,,#Ǿ ±¤³ ¨« ¦« ²² ²§®¯ ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¤£ ²¨· ¸¤ ±² ¦® ³¨³«¤£ %´¦¤¤ '« ²² Menagerie and «®¢ ³¤£ ³ ΘΗΏ 7ȁ Δ AvenueǾ ¶ ² ±¤¢¤³«¸ ¨¥®±¬¤£ ¡¸ ³§¤ 3³ ³¤ ®¥ /±¤¦® ³ ³§¤ ¤£ ®¥ ³§¤¨± th ±¤¢±¤ ³¨® « ¬ ±¨©´ ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® ¯±®¢¤²² ³§ ³ ²¢§®®« ¶ ² «®¢ ³¤£ ¢«®²¤± ³§ ΐΏΏΏ ¥¤¤³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¤·¨²³¨¦ ±¤³ ¨« ¦« ²² ²§®¯ £ ³§¤¨± ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® ¶®´«£ ®³ ¡¤ ¯¯±®µ¤£ȁ 4§¤ ²¢§®®«Ǿ ,®®ª¨¦ '« ²² .¤¶ 2® £² 3¢§®®«Ǿ ¨² «®¢ ³¤£ ³ ΘΓΔ 7ȁ Ζ!µ¤´¤ȁ t§ 7§¨«¤ ³§¤ ²³± ¨¦§³ «¨¤ ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤³ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¢«®²¤²³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨¤ ®¥ ,®®ª¨¦ '« ²² ³® ³§¤ ¢«®²¤²³ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¢®±¤± ®¥ '« ²²2®®³² ¨² ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΔΓΏ ¥¤¤³Ǿ ³§¤ £¨²³ ¢¤ ¯¤£¤²³±¨ ¶®´«£ ³± µ¤« ¥±®¬ £®®± ³® £®®± ¨² ¯¯±®·¨¬ ³¤«¸ ΐΑΏΏ ¥¤¤³ȁ % ±«¨¤± ³§¨² ¸¤ ±Ǿ ³§¤ ,¤¦¨²« ³´±¤ £®¯³¤£ 3¤ ³¤ "¨«« ΐΔΐΐ ¶§¨¢§ ««®¶² ¢¨³¨¤² ³® £®¯³ ®±£¨ ¢¤ ¯¤±¬¨³³¨¦ ±¤¢±¤ ³¨® « ¬ ±¨©´ ¡´²¨¤²² ³® ¡¤ «®¢ ³¤£ «¤²² ³§ ΐΏΏΏ ¥¤¤³ ¡´³ ® ¢«®²¤± ³§ ΔΏΏ ¥¤¤³ ¥±®¬ ²¢§®®« ¨¥ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« £¤³¤±¬¨¤² ³§ ³ ȏ ¯§¸²¨¢ « ®± ¦¤®¦± ¯§¨¢ ¡ ±±¨¤±Ȑ ²¤¯ ± ³¤² ³§¤ ¡´²¨¤²² ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ²¢§®®«ȁ '« ²²2®®³²Ǿ ,,#Ǿ§ ² ±¤°´¤²³¤£ ³§ ³ ³§¤ #¨³¸ #®´¢¨« ¢®²¨£¤± £®¯³¨® ®¥ ²´¢§ ®±£¨ ¢¤ ¯±¨®± ³® &¤¡±´ ±¸ ΐǾ ΑΏΐΖǾ ¶§¤ ³§¤¨± ¯¯«¨¢ ³¨® ¶®´«£ ¤·¯¨±¤ȁ !£®¯³¨¦ ³§¤ ®±£¨ ¢¤ ¶®´«£ ««®¶ st ³§¤ establishment ®¥ ±¤¢±¤ ³¨® « ¬ ±¨©´ ² «¤² ³ ³§¤¨± ¤·¨²³¨¦ ±¤³ ¨« ¦« ²² location. !¥³¤± ³§¤ /±£¨ ¢¤ Ȩ¬ ±ª¤£ ² 6¤±²¨® ΐȩ ¶ ² ¯®²³¤£ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ reviewǾ ¨³ ¶ ² £¤³¤±¬¨¤£ ³§ ³Ǿ ¥®± /,##Ȍ² ¯´±¯®²¤²Ǿ ³§¤ £¨²³ ¢¤ ¡¤³¶¤¤ ,®®ª¨¦ '« ²² £ '« ²²2®®³² ²§®´«£ ¡¤ ¬¤ ²´±¤£ ¨ ²³± ¨¦§³ «¨¤ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¢«®²¤²³ ¯±®¯¤±³¸ «¨¤ ®¥ ,®®ª¨¦ '« ²² ³® ³§¤ ¢«®²¤²³ ¡´¨«£¨¦ ¢®±¤± ®¥ GlassRoots ± ³§¤± ³§ ¥±®¬ ³§¤ ¢®±¤±² ®¥ ³§¤ ³¶® ¯±®¯¤±³¨¤²ȁ 4§¤ ¬¤£¤£ £¨²³ ¢¤ ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤³ ¨² ²§®¶ ¨ «¤¦¨²« ³¨µ¤ ¥®±¬ ³ ¨ 6¤±²¨® Α ®¥ ³§¤ /±£¨ ¢¤ȁ 2%,!4%$ #)49 0/,)#IES 0¤± ³§¤ #¨³¸Ȍ² « £ ´²¤ ¢®£¤, '« ²²2®®³²Ǿ ,,#Ǿ ¨² ¯¤±¬¨³³¤£ ´²¤ ³ ¨³² ¢´±±¤³ «®¢ ³¨® ¨ ³§¤ C-Α #®¬¬´¨³¸ #®¬¬¤±¢¨ « ¹®¤. Ȩ4§¤ ®«¸ #¨³¸ « £ ´²¤ ¢®£¤ ²³ £ ±£ ±¤« ³¨¦ ³® ¬¨¨¬´¬ ²¤¯ ± ³¨® ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ±¤ ¤¤£¨¦ ³ «¤ ²³ ΑΏΏ ¥¤¤³ ¡¤³¶¤¤ ¥±¤¤²³ £¨¦ ²¨¦² ¨ ²®¬¤ ¢®¬¬¤±¢¨ « £ ¨£´²³±¨ « ¹®¤²ȁȩ #/5.#), OPTIONS .®¤ȁ 4§¨² ¨² ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ȁ #)49 -!.!'%2Ȍ3 RECOMMENDATION .®¤ȁ 35''%34%$ -/4)/. .®¤ȁ 0´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ ®«¸ȁ ATTACHMENTS !ȁ Ordinance 6¤±²¨® ΐ Ȩ/±£¨ ¢¤ ¯®²³¤£ ¥®± ¯´¡«¨¢ §¤ ±¨¦ȩ "ȁ /±£¨ ¢¤ 6¤±²¨® Α Ȩ/±£¨ ¢¤ ¶¨³§ ´¯£ ³¤£ £¨²³ ¢¤ ¬¤ ²´±¤¬¤³ȩ &/2 -/2% ).&/2-!4)/. 3³ ¥¥ #®³ ¢³Ȁ -¨ª¤ -¢+¤±±®¶ 4¤«¤¯§®¤Ȁ 541-682-5288 3³ ¥¥ %-Mail: mike.j.mckerrow@ci.eugene.or.us Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE LICENSING OF A RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA RETAIL FACILITY TO LOCATE LESS THAN 1000 FEET FROM LOOKING GLASSNEW ROADS SCHOOLAND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: A. ORS 475B.110(2)(d)provides that a recreational marijuanaretail store registered with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) pursuant to ORS475B.110 may not be located less than 1,000 feet of a public elementary orsecondary school for which attendance is compulsory under ORS 339.020,or aprivate or parochial elementary or secondary school teaching children asdescribed in ORS 339.030(1)(a). th B. GlassRoots. LLC, located at 980 W5Avenue, Eugene, Oregon, is a retail glass shop and has been working toward transitioning to a recreationalmarijuana retail store. GlassRoots submitted an application to OLCC in February of 2016 for a recreational marijuana retail license.Towardthe end of the application process, OLCC notified GlassRoots that an alternative school was located within 1000 feet of the establishment. All application issues must be resolved by February 1, 2017, or the application will be deniedand the application fee lost. th C. Looking Glass New Roads School (Looking Glass), located at 945W7Avenue, Eugene, Oregon,assists homeless youthwith basic needs suchas food, clothingand showers. In addition, Looking Glass provides street outreach services, case management services (transitional living plan, assistance finding housing, etc.), an education program, behavioral health services (mental health and substance abuse treatment, dual diagnosis treatment), and employment guidance (e.g. résumépreparation, job searching, etc.). D. The 2016 Legislature adopted SB 1511. Section 29b of that legislation provides that a city or county may adopt an ordinance that allows a recreational marijuana retailer to be located less than 1000 feet for a school provided that (1) the retailer has a license from OLCC and is located more than 500 feet from the school, and (2) the city or county determines that a physical or geographic barrier exists separating the retail store from the school. th E. GlassRoots is locatedeast of Blair Blvd., south of W5Avenue, at the intersection thth of Blair Blvd.andW5Avenue.Looking Glass is located west of Blair Blvd., north of W7 th Avenue, near the intersection of Blair Blvd.and W7Avenue.The distance of pedestrian travel from the door of Looking Glass to the door of GlassRoots is approximately 1200feet(per GEODart). As the crow flies, the distance from door to door is approximately 700 feet, and the distance between the closest property corners is approximately 420 feet. The two facilities are thth locatedon opposite sides of Blair Blvd. and of W6Avenue. West 6Avenue is a four lane “major” arterial, with average daily traffic of 30,000.Geographically, there are two fenced properties along the pedestrian route between GlassRoots and Looking Glasslimiting direct access between the two facilities.In addition, the two facilities are not within line of sight of each Ordinance -Page 1of 2 Attachment A other, in part due to trees andstructuresblocking that view. In light of these facts, especially the busy arterial roadseparating the Looking Glass from GlassRoots, there are physicalor geographic barriers that will limit children from traversing between the two establishments. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The findings set forth above are adoptedin support of this Ordinance. Section 2. A physical or geographic barrier capable of limiting childrenfrom traversing directly between GlassRoots and Looking Glass existsas described in the above findings. Section 3 .Upon OLCC’s issuance of a license to GlassRoots as a recreational marijuana retail facility, GlassRoots may operate as a recreational marijuana retail facility at980 th W5Avenue, Eugene, Oregon. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Eugene Charter of 2002, with the affirmativevote of two-thirds of the members of the City Council, upon adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor, or passage over the Mayor’s veto, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately. An immediate effective date is necessary due to the February 1, 2017 deadline for Council adoption of an Ordinance allowing GlassRoots to operate as a recreational marijuana retail store. Passed by the City Council thisApproved by the Mayor this _____day ofJanuary, 2017_____ day ofJanuary, 2017 ______________________________________________________________ City RecorderMayor Ordinance -Page 2of 2 Attachment B ORDINANCE NO. ________ AN ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE LICENSING OF A RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA RETAIL FACILITY TO LOCATE LESS THAN 1000 FEET FROM LOOKING GLASSNEW ROADS SCHOOLAND PROVIDING FOR AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: A. ORS 475B.110(2)(d)provides that a recreational marijuanaretail store registered with the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) pursuant to ORS475B.110 may not be located less than 1,000 feet of a public elementary orsecondary school for which attendance is compulsory under ORS 339.020,or aprivate or parochial elementary or secondary school teaching children asdescribed in ORS 339.030(1)(a). th B. GlassRoots. LLC, located at 980 W5Avenue, Eugene, Oregon, is a retail glass shop and has been working toward transitioning to a recreationalmarijuana retail store. GlassRoots submitted an application to OLCC in February of 2016 for a recreational marijuana retail license.Towardthe end of the application process, OLCC notified GlassRoots that an alternative school was located within 1000 feet of the establishment. All application issues must be resolved by February 1, 2017, or the application will be deniedand the application fee lost. th C. Looking Glass New Roads School (Looking Glass), located at 945W7Avenue, Eugene, Oregon,assists homeless youthwith basic needs such as food, clothingand showers. In addition, Looking Glass provides street outreach services, case management services (transitional living plan, assistance finding housing, etc.), an education program, behavioral health services (mental health and substance abuse treatment, dual diagnosis treatment), and employment guidance (e.g. résumépreparation, job searching, etc.). D. The 2016 Legislature adopted SB 1511. Section 29b of that legislation provides that a city or county may adopt an ordinance that allows a recreational marijuana retailer to be located less than 1000 feet for a school provided that (1) the retailer has a license from OLCC and is located more than 500 feet from the school, and (2) the city or county determines that a physical or geographic barrier exists separating the retail store from the school. th E. GlassRoots is locatedeast of Blair Blvd., south of W5Avenue, at the intersection thth of Blair Blvd.andW5Avenue.Looking Glass is located west of Blair Blvd., north of W7 th Avenue, near the intersection of Blair Blvd.and W7Avenue.The distance of pedestrian travel from the door of Looking Glass to the door of GlassRoots is approximately 1200feet(per GEODart). As the crow flies, the distanceThe straight line measurement from door to door is approximately 700 feet, and the distance between the closest property corners is approximately 420 feetstraight line measurement from the closest property line of Looking Glass to the closest building corner of GlassRoots is approximately 540 feet. The two facilities are thth locatedon opposite sides of Blair Blvd. and of W6Avenue. West 6Avenue is a four lane “major” arterial, with average daily traffic of 30,000.Geographically, there are two fenced Ordinance -Page 1of 2 Attachment B properties along the pedestrian route between GlassRoots and Looking Glasslimiting direct access between the two facilities.In addition, the two facilities are not within line of sight of each other, in part due to trees andstructuresblocking that view. In light of these facts, especially the busy arterial roadseparating the Looking Glass from GlassRoots, there are physical or geographic barriers that will limit children from traversing between the two establishments. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The findings set forth above are adoptedin support of this Ordinance. Section 2. A physical or geographic barrier capable of limiting childrenfrom traversing directly between GlassRootsand Looking Glass existsas described in the above findings. Section 3 .Upon OLCC’s issuance of a license to GlassRoots as a recreational marijuana retail facility, GlassRoots may operate as a recreational marijuana retail facility at980 th W5Avenue, Eugene, Oregon. Section 4. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Eugene Charter of 2002, with the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the City Council, upon adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor, or passage over the Mayor’s veto, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately. An immediate effective date is necessary due to the February 1, 2017 deadline for Council adoption of an Ordinance allowing GlassRoots to operate as a recreational marijuana retail store. Passed by the City Council thisApproved by the Mayor this _____day ofJanuary, 2017_____ day ofJanuary, 2017 ______________________________________________________________ City RecorderMayor Ordinance -Page 2of 2