Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/1986 Meeting (2) e e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber January 27, 1986 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Richard Hansen, Debra Ehrman, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Cynthia Wooten The adjourned meetin'g from January 22, 1986, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by Council President Richard Hansen in the absence of His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. TREE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION REPORT A. Presentation of "Trees for Eugene" Brochure Councilor Bascom distributed to the councilors copies of a booklet titled "Trees for Eugene". She said the brochure is available at the Permit and Information Center and River House at 301 North Adams Street. She introduced Jeff Hale, City Arborist, and Robin Morgan, a member of the Tree Beautifica- tion Commission. Ms. Bascom said Ms. Morgan authored the brochure and has been active in choosing the trees for planting on 6th and 7th avenues. Ms. Morgan described the booklet which indicates appropriate trees to plant in the City. B. 6th/7th Avenues Tree Selection and Planting Ms. Bascom said many Northern Red Oaks will be planted on 6th and 7th avenues. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located in the Vicinity of Airport Road and Highway 99 North from County M-2, M-2/SR, and M-2/SR/ICU-10 to City 1-2 Light-Medium Industrial District and I-2/SR Light-Medium Industrial District with Site Review Procedures (Airport Road) (AZ 85-3) (memo, map, background information distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Terry Jones of the Planning Department gave the staff report. She reviewed the background information about the annexation rezoning request and said the council had studied the request in a work session. She said the request included 170 acres of land in 36 tax lots owned by 23 property owners. The property is 1.7 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 1 e e e miles from the present city limits. The request was processed as a triple majority annexation which means that a majority of the property owners involved consented to the annexation, that they own a majority of the land area in the annexation, and that they own a majority of the assessed value in the request. She said some non-consenting property owners were included in the request. Ms. Jones said copies of three letters had been distributed to the councilors since the work session. One letter was from R.H. Bolton, owner of Tax Lot 1700. A petition with the signatures of 15 property owners who opposed the annexation was attached to Mr. Bolton's letter. In his letter, Mr. Bolton said the signatures represented a majority of the land area and the assessed value in the area. Ms. Jones added that the owners of Tax Lots 1603 and 1800 signed the letter but their lots were not included in the annexation request. The other letters were from Susan L. Kesey, owner of the Springfield Creamery, Inc., and Bradford Lane, pastor of the Faith Christ Fellowship, who supported the annexation request. Ms. Jones said a memo dated January 27, 1986, attached to the council agenda indicated the land area, the 1985 assessed value, and the owners of each of the tax lots included in the request. She said Tax Lots 500 and 600 at the northern edge of the annexation are owned by the Blachly-Lane Electric Co-op. They were included in the request because the staff thought they were tax-exempt. However, the staff learned today that the Co-op is not tax-exempt because it pays utility taxes to the State. Ms. Jones suggested the council withdraw Tax Lots 500 and 600 from the annexation request. Discussing sanitary sewers and ways to mitigate the costs of the annexation, Jim Carlson of the Planning Department said the Airport Road area is within the River Road/Santa Clara sewer project. He said the staff has worked with property owners to minimize the initial extension of sewer lines to reduce costs to property owners. Some of the sewer costs can be deferred because of the existing grant-funded trunk sewer line on Enid Road. He said a tax differential schedule is another way of mitigating costs. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by the councilors. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Carlson said the River Road/Santa Clara sewer grant request indicated that 15 percent of the existing development in the area must be connected to the sewers by 1988. Connections in the Airport Road area will count in the 15 percent. Mr. Hansen opened the public hearing. Those speaking in favor of the proposal spoke. Martha Falkenstein, 29476 Airport Road, is secretary/treasurer of Falkenstein Meats. She said owners in the area are anxious to annex their properties. She said annexation will prevent expensive stop-gap measures because City services are needed to develop properties to their fullest potential. She MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 2 e e e emphasized that some of the annexation costs can be spread over several years. She said she is concerned about the development of the area. Falkenstein Meats is expanding and the owners have chosen to remain in the area. The number of employees has increased 30 percent in the past year. An additional increase of 20 percent is expected in 1986. She urged the council to approve the request. Evelyn McNutt, 42037 Holden Creek Lane, Springfield, 2001 occupied by the Coca-Cola Sales Service Center. are needed in the area. They will increase economic County, and the state. Susan Kesey, 1236 Janus, represented Springfield Creamery which owns Tax Lot 802. She favored the annexation because City sewers will be desirable when the Creamery is moved to Tax Lot 802. She said the Creamery bought the property six years ago when it was not within the urban growth boundary. She did not expect to have urban services this soon; but now the sewer is 300 yards from the lot. She said some people usually oppose a proposal of this magnitude, but those same people may support such a proposal in the future. She emphasized that conditions change. She said she looks forward to moving the Creamery to Airport Road, to the expansion of the Creamery, to the expansion of the airport because the company uses air freight, and to more prosperity for everyone in Lane County. owns Tax Lots 1900 and She said City services stability in Eugene, Lane Several people spoke in opposition to the proposal. Vernon L. Thompson, 530 East 46th Avenue, asked Mr. Hansen to allow more than 15 minutes for testimony in opposition. Replying, Mr. Hansen said sufficient time would be provided, but he asked people not to repeat what others say. Mr. Thompson read his testimony and then submitted it in writing. He repre- sented Tom Maks and Maks Wood Products Co. He said some members of the staff and the Planning Commission made a fundamental error of judgment in assessing the annexation proposal and the error was compounded by technical errors. He read POlicy 21 of the economic element of the Metro Area General Plan and statements from the Eugene Urbanization Report. Mr. Thompson said the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 7, 1986, did not state that commission officers were elected at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Thompson said Jim Ellison, the new commission president, "was new to the task." Mr. Thompson said only those who supported the proposal had an opportunity for rebuttal at the commission hearing and Mr. Ellison "seemed unduly pressured and influenced by Mr. Bennett" who called for the question. Mr. Thompson said public comment should have been permitted after the commissioners discussed the issue and before they voted on it. Mr. Thompson discussed Mr. Gaydos' statement indicating Americans use a simple majority to decide many elections. Mr. Thompson said every American should have the right to vote. He said non-consenting property owners cannot vote when the triple majority procedures are used and, therefore, the procedures are not fai r. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 3 e e e Mr. Thompson read from ORS 199.490. He said Jim Ramseyer, Manager of Blachly- Lane Co-op, told him Blachly-Lane is not exempt from ad valorem taxes and representatives have not signed a consent petition for the annexation. Discussing a logical boundary, Mr. Thompson said he did not think legislators intended that the triple majority procedures should force annexation upon people. He said boundaries in the proposal were changed and properties were excluded to comply with the criteria for a triple majority. He said the criteria should not be a club wielded by a few. Fairness should be considered. He said the annexation proposal has a contrived boundary. It is not a logical boundary. He said the people who have made the area attractive to others are being punished. He asked the councilors not to support the proposal. Bob Bolton, 665 Spyglass, owns Tax Lot 1700. He said he had presented a petition with about 12 signatures of people who oppose the annexation and who own a simple majority of the land with a simple majority of the assessed value of the land in the proposed annexation. He said the City staff manipulated the properties to devise a triple majority proposal. He said no proposal could have been devised if all the properties had been treated in the same way. He discussed several examples of the manipulation. Mr. Bolton said the owner of Tax Lot 803 initiated the proposal. Tax Lot 803 has 115 feet of Airport Road frontage and the lateral sewer assessment will be $3,036. It is the smallest Airport Road frontage in the proposal. The lateral sewer assessment for Tax Lot 1700 will be $30,000. Mr. Bolton said property owners are concerned about the impact of the proposal on their cash flow just as the councilors are concerned about the impact of the proposal on the City's cash flow. Mr. Bolton said the owner of Tax Lot 2300 lives on the property; but the property is included in the proposal because there is a 4,000-square-foot building on the back of the property which is rented for an industrial use. However, the tenant is in bankruptcy. Mr. Bolton said the property owner has severe back problems and cannot be employed. Mr. Bolton said Tax Lot 2401 is one lot away from Tax Lot 2300 and is owned by Chuck Larson. It has a leased 10,000-square-foot building on it. The property is assessed at $142,000. The property was excluded from the proposal to meet the criteria. Mr. Bolton said Tax Lot 1800 was excluded from the proposal because it is on the edge of the proposal and because, if it is included, the triple majority criteria could not be met. He said Oregon case law indicates the annexation proposal is not legal. He read from a court opinion in the case of Portland General Electric vs the City of Estacada which indicated that statutes used for annexation proposals must be used reasonably and not arbitrarily. He said the City staff arbitrarily included and excluded properties to get a triple majority. For example, he read from the minutes of the Planning Commission pUblic hearing which indicated Tax Lot 1800 was excluded from the proposal because the owner did not consent to the annexation and its inclusion as a non-consenting property would have affected the triple majority percentages too much. Mr. Bolton said approval of the proposal will result in successful litigation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 4 e e e Discussing the River Road/Santa Clara sewer grant, Mr. Bolton said the "hook up goal II in the grant is not a good reason for annexing property 1.7 miles from the city limits. He said the grant was intended to solve sewer problems in the River Road/Santa Clara area where there is a moratorium on septic tanks. He said the annexation of the Airport Road area was not included when the grant was approved. Mr. Bolton read from a Letter to the Editor published in The Register-Guard on January 25, 1986, from Aaron Jones, owner of Seneca Sawmill. Mr. Bolton said the Fa1kensteins own Tax Lot 803 now and initiated the'annex- ation proposal. They formerly owned Tax Lot 802. The sewer system for Tax Lot 803 was located on Tax Lot 802 and the Fa1kensteins have not financed an adequate sewer system for Tax Lot 803 as other owners have done on their prop- erties. So many buildings have been constructed on Tax Lot 803 that there is no room for a sewer system. He said the owners initiated an annexation propo- sal for properties which are 1.7 miles from the city limits and then proper- ties were selectively chosen to comply with the triple majority criteria. Mr. Bolton said the Department of Environmental Quality and the City permitted the owner to "get into this predicament." Summarizing, Mr. Bolton said many people in the Airport Road area were financing sophisticated private sewer systems while the owner of Tax Lot 803 was reaping profits from the sale of Tax Lot 802. He said the arbitrary exclusion of Tax Lot 1800 to create a triple majority is not legal. He said it will be tested in the courts if the proposal is approved. He suggested the process be slowed so that a plan can be developed to solve the Falkensteins' problems in a legal way. He hoped a legal battle will not be created at the gateway to the city. He urged the council to oppose the annexation. Michael F. Fox, 330 North Adam, agreed with Mr. Thompson and Mr. Bolton. Mr. Fox said a decision in the case of Peterson vs the City of Klamath Falls indicated that land use decisions should be rational. They should not be capricious. Therefore, all the land within the urban growth boundary west of Highway 99 should be included in the proposal. He said the boundary of the proposal was gerrymandered to meet the triple majority criteria. Mr. Fox said the City has encouraged compact urban growth for many years. He said it has become part of the social contract between Eugeneans and their government and approval of the annexation proposal would be a breach of faith. He said the properties in the proposal are outside the developed area and approval of the proposal would be "leapfrogging." Richard Geranian, 29439 West Enid Road, owns Tax Lot 2300 which is two acres. He lives on the property. He said no other owner-occupied tax lots of non-consenting owners were included in the proposal. Mr. Geranian said the 4,000-square-foot building in the back of his property was empty for two years. He rented it recently and, for that reason, the property was included in the proposal. He said there is an 11,000-square-foot building on Tax Lot 2401 which was excluded. Mr. Geranian said the 170-acre annexation proposal includes many lots. It is not the campus-type industrial development people have indicated is needed by the city. He said owners who need sewers should pay for them. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 5 e e e Aaron Jones, 1880 McLean Boulevard, said one of the Lane County Commissioners asked him to testify. Mr. Jones said he responded to a request to move his business from Seneca Road to Highway 99 North about 30 years ago when City and lane County officials were interested in developing the Industrial Triangle. He discussed the statements about the area made at that time. He said gas and water are available to properties in the area without annexation. He said most owners provide their own sewage treatment facilities, but City sewers should be available without annexation. He said the majority of owners do not want their properties to be annexed for good reasons. He said the industrial triangle should be developed as planned. Gordon Elliott, 1414 Polk, discussed past planning efforts in the City and lane County. He said he has planned a self-sufficient development on his property in the Enid Road area for many years. He said the main trunk for the River Road/Santa Clara sewer is on his property, but the City will not provide sewer service to his property. Robert Bodine, 1622 Olive, said he decided not to locate a business in Lane County because the land use laws are too complex. He said many people in Eugene want to work, but the triple majority process may deter people from locating businesses here. He read about compact urban growth from the Eugene Urbanization Report. He could not understand how the City could plan a non-contiguous annexation. He suggested it might be a way to get customers for the River Road/Santa Clara sewer project. He said he has worked in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the purpose of EPA grants for sewer projects is to solve problems. He said the annexation proposal will solve some problems, but it will also provide growth which violates the City.s agreement with the EPC. Responding to the testimony, Ms. Jones said the Planning Commission approved only an excerpt of the minutes of its public hearing on January 7, 1986. The election of officers and the other items considered will be in the rest of the minutes. She said the City.s hearing procedures indicate that only the applicant can rebut testimony. Ms. Jones said the proposal was initiated by people who want their properties annexed and who need City services. It was a difficult proposal to assemble. She said it complies with the Metro Plan mandate for compact urban growth because the properties are within the urban growth boundary and because all urban services are available to that particular location close to the airport. She said other properties distant from the city limits probably will not comply with the criteria for annexation. Mr. Carlson discussed the boundary of the proposal and said no regulations require all the property in an area to be in an annexation proposal. Answering questions from Mr. Miller, Mr. Carlson said sewer assessments are based on lot frontage. The assessment for Tax Lot 1700 will be more than the assessment for Tax Lot 300 even though the sewer might benefit them equally. Mr. Carlson added that additional assessments will be made if a subdivision is developed on Tax Lot 300, but a subdivision on Tax Lot 1700 probably will not necessitate additional assessments. The plan for the trunk sewer to the airport indicates it will not go down Airport Road. It will serve properties on Highway 99 north of Enid Road. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 6 e e e Responding to questions from Ms. Ehrman and Mr. Holmer, City Attorney Tim Sercombe said case law indicates that the council must act reasonably in initiating annexation requests. Services must be available logically, they must comply with the City's policies and State law, and the boundary must be reasonable. The creation of islands is not unreasonable. He said the council should not divide the proposal into three annexation requests; but the council could exclude some properties from the proposal. Replying to questions from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Carlson discussed the criteria used to assemble the proposal. The location of the sewer lines was one of the criteria. He said the proposed location of the sewer lines is where they will best serve the properties of consenting owners and the maximum number of other properties. Mr. Sercombe said the proposal complies with the criteria in the City's code and State law. The councilors must make a political decision as to whether the configuration is proper in their view. Responding to questions from Ms. Schue, Mr. Carlson said the owner of Tax Lot 1700 will only be assessed for the portion of the sewer constructed. However, eventually the sewer will probably be extended along all of Airport Road and the owner will be assessed for it then. The City is planning to construct the shortest line possible to serve the properties in the proposal on Airport Road. The eastern end of Tax Lot 1700 is vacant. The properties of consenting owners south of Airport Road are developed. Replying to questions from Ms. Bascom, Mr. Carlson said the criteria for a triple majority proposal make assembling a proposal difficult. The effect is an attempt to be fair to non-consenting property owners. Mr. Holmer responded that non-consenting owners do not have the right to vote on an annexation when the triple majority process is used. Mr. Sercombe discussed other processes which provide for an election in the affected area. Answering a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Carlson said the City staff suggested the applicant contact all the owners of properties in the area west of Highway 99. None of the applicants spoke when Mr. Hansen asked for rebuttal testimony. There being no additional requests to testify, Mr. Hansen closed the public hearing. The hearing was recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9 p.m. Ms. Ehrman said it is difficult to assess an annexation proposal that includes non-consenting property owners. She noted that the proposal also included people who want to be within the city and it complies with the triple majority criteria. Mr. Miller said he was concerned about fairness. He said a decision would be easier if the triple majority proposal included all the properties in the industrial node west of Highway 99 North. He said policies indicate that all the properties within the urban growth boundary will be annexed to the cities and that the cities will not go beyond the urban growth boundary. However, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 7 e e e Mr. Miller found it difficult to consider gerrymandering the boundary to obtain a triple majority without considering other ways which might include a tax differential. He wondered if a triple majority within the whole node could be obtained if ways were found to mitigate the costs and effects of the annexation. He said smaller parcels can be annexed although the sewer extension might not be so expeditious. Mr. Gleason responded that any annexation proposal must be logical and the first test of a logical proposal is the provision of services. Consequently. urban services will have to be provided in any new proposal. and non- consenting property owners will probably have to be included in any proposal. Mr. Miller emphasized that he is concerned about mitigating the impacts of annexation on non-consenting property owners. Answering a question. Mr. Carlson said Tax Lot 2300 owned by Richard Geranian was included in the proposal because there is an industrial use on the back of the property. even though there is a residence on the front. It is not contiguous to the other residential properties. Ms. Brody added that a tax differential schedule helps to offset the effects of annexation and Mr. Gleason said the sewer assessments can be paid over ten years with Bancroft loans. Ms. Schue said sewer service is the most essential urban service in industri- ally designated areas. but it is difficult and expensive to provide. She said the lack of sewer service has prevented development in some areas and the City has made a commitment to provide sewers to the Airport Road area. She asked if the Airport Road area is within the River Road/Santa Clara Sewer Project. if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expects properties in the area to be connected to the River Road/Santa Clara sewer. and if it is fair to say the City has received Federal funding to expedite providing sewers to the area. Staff members answered I~es" to her questions. Mr. Gleason added that the Metropolitan General Plan indicates specifically that the council will direct the staff to acquire grants to extend sewer trunk lines to provide services so that industrial lands beyond the city limits can be annexed and developed. The River Road/Santa Clara sewer grant is a result of those statements in the Metro Plan. Ms. Bascom said the proposal seemed to be manipulated or contrived. but it is legal. The facts that full urban services are available and the property is within the urban growth boundary help her deal with the fairness issue. She favors the application of a tax differential schedule to mitigate the adverse effects of the annexation. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom. Mr. Carlson said the six non-consenting property owners in the middle of the proposal were excluded from the annexation proposal because five of them are residential properties. The owner of the sixth property consented to annexation for two other properties and wished to have Tax Lot 2401 excluded at this time because of leasing complications on the property. Les Lyle of the Public Works Department said existing assessment deferral plans are for low-income. elderly people only. Bancroft loans are only issued for public improvements. Connections to the sewers must be made within 18 months of their availability and cannot be included in the Bancroft loans. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27. 1986 Page 8 - e e Mr. Holmer said he would oppose the proposal as presented. However, he hoped action would be deferred to Wednesday, January 29, so that the staff can present additional information. He would like to consider the costs of a tax differential program. He would like to know how the council can change the proposal. He assumed Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 could be separated and the owners invited to resubmit an annexation request. He believes in compact urban growth, but he did not like the apparent gerrymandering of this proposal. He said annexations should include contiguous properties that represent a neigh- borhood and Tax Lot 102 seems to be in the neighborhood of the properties in the proposal south of Airport Road. He said Tax Lots 100 and 800 are spurs to provide access to large agricultural properties, and he could exclude them from the annexation. A compact unit representing proponents of the annexation between Enid Road and Airport Road that also includes 2401, 2500, 2700, and 2701 would seem to be logical and consistent. He would be willing to exclude Tax Lots 2800 and 2900. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Sercombe said Mr. Holmer's sugges- tions might not require an entirely new proposal. The council can exclude properties from the proposal; but, if Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 are excluded from the proposal, a new proposal will be needed to annex them in the future. Mr. Hansen agreed with Mr. Holmer's statements. He said he generally supports annexations, but this proposal seemed to be manipulated. He is interested in a tax differential program and in separating the properties. Ms. Brody restated Mr. Holmer's requests. She said he would like to exclude Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 and all the non-consenting property owners south of those lots; ask the owners of Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 to resubmit an annexation proposal later; reconfigure the southern part of the proposal to comply with the triple majority criteria and to include Tax Lot 102; and to minimize the islands and the number of non-consenting property owners. Ms. Brody suggested the application fee be waived if the owners of Tax Lots 1900 and 2001 resubmit a proposal. Several other councilors asked for additional information. Ms. Bascom said changing the proposal might be costly to the City because sewer extension costs will be deferred. She asked the staff for information about the additional costs. Mr. Rutan supported Mr. Holmer's statements. He asked for additional information about the excluded properties because they are zoned industrially and he thought they should be treated as zoned. He said the boundaries of the proposal seemed to be gerrymandered to get the triple majority. For example, the sewer will be extended to Tax Lot 1700 which was included, and the sewer will also be extended to Tax Lot 1800 which was not included. He would like to approve the applicants' request without including so many non-consenting property owners. Mr. Hansen said he would like the council to consider the City's policy of not charging interest on deferred sewer assessments. He suggested the deferrals should be adjusted for inflation. Ms. Brody said property owners will have to be notified and a new hearing held if non-consenting property owners are added to the proposal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 9 Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Brody suggested the record for the ~ proposal be closed. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Carlson said the assessment for Tax Lot 1700 will be based on the entire area of the lot. It will not be based on the frontage on two streets. Mr. Hansen continued consideration of the proposal to Wednesday, January 29, 1986. B. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located on the South Side of West 11th Avenue, West of Willow Creek Road from County RA Suburban Residential District to City RA Suburban Residential District (Lane Memorial Gardens) (AZ 85-4) (memo, map, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Bill French of the Planning Department gave the staff report. He said the request involves 80 acres on the south side of West 11th Avenue in Tax Lots 2500 and 2501. Tax Lot 2500 is owned by Mac Moore, the owner of Lane Memorial Gardens, and Tax Lot 2501 is owned by Lane County. Mr. French described the properties. He said they are designated Open Space in the Metro Plan and the Willow Creek Refinement Plan. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared. e Mr. Hansen opened the public hearing. Gordon Elliott, 1414 Polk, said he would like the councilors to compare the analysls of the request to an analysis of his property. There being no additional requests to testify, Mr. Hansen closed the public hearing. Res. No. 3956--A resolution authorizing annexation of property located on the south side of West 11th Avenue, west of Willow Creek Road to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District Mr. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Final Order No. AZ 85-4--A final order rezoning property located on the south side of West 11th Avenue west of Willow Creek Road from County RA Suburban Residential District to City RA Suburban Residential District. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 10 - Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to approve Final Order No. AZ 85-4 to rezone property on the south side of West 11th Avenue west of Willow Creek Road from County RA Suburban Residential District to City RA Suburban Residential District. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. C. Ordinance Concerning Prohibited Weapons (memo, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Randy Wight of the Police Department gave the staff report. He said ordinances that prohibit the possession of certain weapons have been declared unconstitutional. However, ordinances can regulate the way weapons are possessed and used. e Mr. Wight said weapons-related offenses and associated criminal conduct have increased in the city. The proposed ordinance was drafted in response to concerns and inquiries from the councilors. Mr. Wight reviewed each section of the ordinance. He said a concealed weapon is defined in Section 4.880 as a weapon which is on or about a person so that it is readily available for use as a weapon. Weapons in the trunks of cars or weapons carried so that they are not readily available for use are not considered concealed weapons. Mr. Wight said a representative of the National Rifle Association (NRA) was concerned about the proposed regulations pertaining to the possession of loaded firearms at a person's residence or place of business. As a result, an amended ordinance was distributed to the councilors. In the amended ordinance, sub-sections (4) were added to Section 4.886 and Section 4.888. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the sub-sections create affirmative defenses to the charge of possession of a loaded weapon or a concealed weapon if the possession is in the person's residence or place of residence. At Mr. Hansen's request, the amended ordinance was distributed to people in the audience. Mr. Sercombe said the City's previous ordinances which prohibited weapons were repealed because they were unconstitutional. In the fall, the council reacted to a rise in violence, threats, and aggression on the mall by asking for a new ordinance which would be constitutional and provide proper enforcement. Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Wight said police officers usually jUdge intoxication without using a Breathalyzer. He doubted the police would request a Breathalyzer test when people are charged with offenses in the proposed ordinance. Responding to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Sercombe said an affirmative defense places the burden of proof on the defendant to prove the facts. If a person can demonstrate the facts to the police, the person probably will not be arrested. If there is a dispute about the facts, the defendant has to prove them in court. The proposed regulations allow a person who has a permit to carry a gun. They allow people such as chefs to carry weapons like knives to and from work if the weapons are used lawfully in the person's work. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 11 e e e Replying to questions from Mr. Miller, Mr. Sercombe said the proposed regulations do not permit a person to carry a loaded or concealed weapon without a permit unless the person complies with one of the exemptions in the ordinance. Permits are issued by the Sheriff's Department under State laws. Mr. Hansen opened the public hearing. Murry Brooks, 2110 West 20th, is Executive Secretary of the Wi11amette Valley Arms Collectors Association. He said the proposed ordinance was not available to the public in time to be reviewed by concerned citizens. A friend of his spent three hours on Friday, January 24, getting a copy of the ordinances. There was very little time to get legal advice. Mr. Brooks said State regulations define deadly weapons and dangerous weapons. He said firearms are defined as deadly weapons by the State, but they are defined as dangerous weapons in the Eugene ordinance. He was concerned about vagueness in the proposed ordinance. He said an arrest by a Eugene police officer based on an opinion of the Oregon Attorney General was recently thrown out of court because of vagueness. He said the case may be appealed by the State, but court action is expensive. Mr. Brooks said the affirmative defense provisions of the proposed ordinance do not exempt the holder of a permit for a concealed weapon. The person could be arrested. He discussed how difficult it is to get a permit for a concealed weapon. He said many citizens do not know of the proposed regulations and have not had an opportunity to review them. He asked the council to table consideration of the ordinance. Fred Schuster, 2460 Willamette, asked the council to postpone consideration of the ordinance so it can be studied. Wayne Goddard, 473 Durham, makes hunting and other knives for a living. He sald a concealed hunting knife is classified in the proposed regulations as a deadly weapon. He said the regulation is silly. He represented the Oregon Knife Collectors Association of 150 members. He said association members should review the ordinance. He said the ordinance contains some antique terms. He reconmended the book ti tl ed "Kni ves and the Law" by James R. Nielson. He asked the council to allow time for input from interested groups. William sugrs, 480 East 41st, is a member of the NRA and the Board of Directors 0 the Oregon Rifle and Pistol Association. He said the ordinance was available for public review only a few days before the hearing, and it was difficult to get copies of the ordinance for the NRA to review. However, the amended sections of the ordinance address some of the NRA concerns. Mr. Suggs said he coaches some members of the United States National Shooting Team. His vehicle has no trunk, and members of the team might be arrested while going to practice if the proposed regulations are adopted. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 12 e e e Lyle Nunn, 875 East 43rd, is a volunteer pastor. He said the Eugene Police do a good job, but they cannot be everywhere. He said he was attacked one evening at a bank machine. Although the person was identified by Mr. Nunn, the person was not jailed. Mr. Nunn said people must assume some responsi- bility for their own protection. He said criminals have weapons and law- abiding citizens are at a disadvantage without them. William T. Sweet, 65 West 26th, owns a bookstore in Eugene. He has never lived 1n a house without firearms. He used to own a convenience store and was robbed three times by people with concealed weapons. He said concealed weapons are almost always used by criminals. He said the proposed regulations should control behavior. Mr. Sweet said some people on the downtown mall have spears, knives, and chains. He saw a young girl attack another girl with a belaying pin. He saw a young man throw a powder which burst into flames. He said such behavior should be regulated and the ordinance does that. He said the City staff has worked on the proposed regulations since April, although, when the public hearing was announced, the public did not have much time to review the item. Mr. Sweet supported the ordinance and urged the council to adopt it. He said there is an emergency. He said some people on the mall brandish simulated weapons at police officers who have done an excellent job of restraining themselves. He said people come around a corner and point toy guns at police officers, and someday a 12-year-old may be killed if such behavior is not stopped. Mr. Sweet said City Councilors and other citizens have a responsibility to control behavior which violates basic standards. He said the proposed ordinance does not take away the right to keep and bear arms. It addresses behavior. He said the ordinance can be amended later. It is needed now. Jim Hamm, 23901 High Pass Road, said he carries a concealed weapon in Lane County five or six months a year legally without a permit for business reasons. He is a guide. He said he could be arrested if he stops at a convenience store going to or from work if Section 4.888 (1) (a) is adopted. He said it will violate his constitutional rights. Mr. Hamm said the proposed ordinance will not address the problem on the downtown mall. He said it will affect law-abiding citizens. He said two businesses on the mall attract people who cause problems and the problems on the mall shoul d be addressed di rectly. Steve Lesh, 28459 Siesta Lane, said he was offended by some of the proposed regulations, but, after studying the amended ordinance and listening to the testimony, he recommended the councilors table consideration of the ordinance to give themselves and other citizens time to review it. Gordon Elliott, 1414 Polk, said carrying a weapon gives him security. He cheCKS his property at night many times. He asked the council to table the proposal. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 13 e e e Jeff Guidotte, 88529 Nisslyn, said he carries the commodities the people being disarmed want. He said the number of people who want the commodities may increase to counteract the provisions of the proposed ordinance. He said the problem is not just weapons. It is the gangs on the mall. He said the behavior of the gangs should be changed. They have pointed simulated weapons at people. He did not know how long the police officers can put up with it. He suggested action on the ordinance be postponed. He asked the councilors to work with the gangs and not with the inanimate objects they have. L. H. Noah, 34 Cedar, lives in Eugene and is chairman of the Arizona State Legislative Bodies. He is a member of the Good Sam Club. He referred to regulations controlling weapons in Morton Grove and San Francisco and said owners of recreational vehicles do not go to those cities. He said owners of recreational vehicles will not stop in Eugene if the proposed regulations are adopted. There being no additional request to testify, Mr. Hansen closed the public hearing. Answering a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Sercombe said there is no specific date before which the council must act on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Miller said City policy is to provide adequate material quickly to the public. He wondered why some of those testifying had trouble obtaining the proposed ordinance. He hoped the staff would consult with those who had testified to mitigate concerns. He said the council intended to remove threats to public safety when it requested the proposed regulations. The council did not intend to take away constitutional rights. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to table consideration of the ordinance concerning prohibited weapons to February 12, 1986, and to leave the record open to obtain additional input. Ms. Bascom said it is important to provide sufficient time for public review of ordinances. She appreciated having an apparent lack of time called to the council's attention. Several councilors requested additional information. Ms. Schue would like to know whether a recreational vehicle parked in the city will be regarded as a home or as a public place if the proposed regulations concerning weapons are implemented. Mr. Holmer would like information about weapons control in Morton Grove. Mr. Miller would like information about affirmative defensive vs. reasons for not being arrested. Mr. Hansen said he would have supported the proposed ordinance this evening because the problem is serious. He said adoption of such an ordinance will help the police department and other citizens and the ordinance could be amended later. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1986 Page 14 - e . The motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Hansen adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. R~~_. Micheal Gleason Ci ty Manager (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR: pm/ST991 MINUTES--Eugene City Council Page 15 January 27, 1986