Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/1983 Meeting (2) M I NUT E S Eugene City Council e City Council Chamber Jul y 11, 1983 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Freeman Holmer, John Ball, Emily Schue, Brian Obie, Dick Hansen, Mark Lindberg, Cynthia Wooten. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Contract Award for Lorane Highway Improvement Project Mr. Gleason said that he lived in the area involved, and, although he was not involved in previous discussions of this item, would not participate in Council discussion so there would be no appearance of a conflict of interest. He asked Mr. Whitlow, Assistant City Manager, to handle this item. Mr. Gl eason 1 eft the meeting. Mr. Whitlow introduced Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, who reviewed the Public Works Department's memorandum of July 5. Mr. Teitzel noted that the project had been instituted at the request of the 4-J School District, in order e to provide safe conditions for children walking to Crest Elementary School. The project consisted of a minimal design with two lanes, two bike lanes and a sidewalk. Mr. Teitzel observed that the remonstrance petition which had been received represented 75 percent of the assessable frontage, and that after reconsideration of the project, a two-thirds vote of the council would be required to approve it. He indicated that staff, after reviewing the materials, recommended approval of the project. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in support of the remonstrance petition: Jan Gund, 1670 Lorane Highway, said that she had worked with the School District Safety Committee to prepare an alternative plan similar to the one in use at Gilham Road, including increased safety education at the school, which had been submitted to Mr. Teitzel. She said that the staff recommendation was based on inflated traffic figures and estimated numbers of students, and that enrollment at Crest Elementary School was decreasing, so that only 27 children were currently eligible for busing. In addition, she stated that the children used Lorane Highway during times of light traffic flow, varying from 3.1 to 5.0 including trucks. The accident rate on this stretch of highway was minimal with no accidents having occurred since 1981. She observed that Lorane Highway was a unique and historic highway, and urged the council to reconsider the project. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 Page 1 Carroll D. Fentress, 3883 Blanton Road, said that he was the chairperson of the Crest Drive Neighborhood Association, and stated his opposition to the alleged II improvement, II and hi s hope that the counci 1 woul d give open-mi nded recon sidera- e tion to the project. He said that the proposed plan was not safer than available alternatives, quoting the views of a safety expert in opposition to the project. Noting that the plan called for gutters, curbs and sidewalks in order to make the highway unifonn with streets in the rest of the City, he said that Lorane Highway was one of the unique touches that made Eugene special and appealed to vi si tors. Mr. Fentress commented that the abutting property owners were being assessed in this matter at a time of economic hardship and that, while the safety of school children should clearly be over-riding, there were viable alternatives to this project. Characterizing the plan as an unnecessary deci- sion being forced on unwilling citizens, he urged the council to pennit them to continue to live in peace. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Teitzel responded to testimony, noting that the Gilham Road design had been built to County standards which were not acceptable to the City. He added that three representatives of the School District were available to answer questions. Bob Pellico, Safety Supervisor for the Transportation Division of School District 4-J, said that the district transported students who would otherwise have to walk under hazardous conditions, and that this involved an ongoing expense. He said that direct savings would result for 4-J from these improvements. He noted that these improvements are the standard throughout the community. Noting that some students were currently choosing to walk, he added that he was not sure what the safety situation would be if the improvements were not made. If the improvements were not made and bus service not available, this would present a e real problem. In response to a question from Councilor Smith, Mr. Pellico said that he could not evaluate the impact of a 4-foot gravel shoulder, noting that a curb would give more delineation, and adding that a number of children were still being bused at Gilham Road. Councilor Holmer asked whether the $21,000 of City funds, which would not be spent if this project were not actualized, would be spent instead on alternative projects such as the installation of street lights. Mr. Teitzel replied that this decision would be one to be made by the Budget Committee or the City Council. Councilor Hansen said that he had viewed the portion of Lorane Highway in ques- tion and had seen a deer, but no children. He expressed his concern that this portion of the highway appeared to have less problems than the rest of Lorane Hi ghway . He stated that he had real reservations about the project, despite his concern for the safety of the children. Councilor Obie said that he was opposed to this project and that it was time to listen to the citizens and stop trying to do things that people did not want done. Councilor Wooten said that she had opposed this project when it was first before the council and continued to oppose it. She added that the number of children involved did not merit the cost at this time, but that the project might become necessary in the future. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 Page 2 Councilor Ball said that City policy for these types of improvements should be standard throughout the city, and such improvements were a high priority. Adding that he was concerned for the safety of the children, he stated that the e project should be approved. Councilor Lindberg concurred with Councilor Ball, noting that the improvements would have to be made sooner or later. Councilor Smith said that she had supported the project when it first came before the council, but would oppose it now. She asked staff to look at various alternatives such as gravel shoulders, crossways and/or stop signs. Councilor Hansen said that the standards for roadways should not be changed. He would not support substandard improvements to be made. He sa i d that the ci ti zens in the area should be responsible for maintaining the street if it were not to be improved to City standards. Councilor Ball stated his support for citywide standards, noting that it was not acceptable to permit neighborhood testimony to determine the quality of the roadway. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to proceed with the paving and sidewalk project on Lorane Highway from Chambers Street to Fillmore Street. Mayor Keller noted that six affirmative votes were needed to pass the motion. Roll call vote: the motion was defeated 5:3, Councilors Ball, Schue and Lindberg voting in favor, Councilors Smith, Holmer, e Obie, Hansen and Wooten voting in opposition. A short break was taken from 8:10 to 8:15 p.m. Mr. Gleason returned to the meeting. B. AnnexationlRezoni ng Request: Property 1 oc ated on the north si de of Silver Lane, west of River Road from County R-1 Single-Family Resi- dential District to City R-1 Low-Density Residential District (Hamilton, Hood et.al.)(A/Z 83-5). Recommended approval by Planning Commission June 14, 1983. Vote 4 :0 Mr. Gleason introduced Tom Hayes, Planning Department, who reviewed the staff notes. Mr. Hayes observed that the request was a triple majority petition on 18 acres between Beltline Road and Silver Lane, currently zoned County R-1. He indicated that 1 etters in opposi tion to the annexation had been received from the Santa Clara Rural Fire Department and three property owners. Mr. Hayes went on to note that at the Planning Commission meeting of June 14 the question of petitioner withdrawal had been raised. Staff had, at that time, said that this was an acceptable procedure. Since that time, he observed, the City Attorney had advised that petitioners could not withdraw. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Hayes stated that Mr. Rutan of the Planning Commission was available to answer questions. In response to a question from Councilor Wooten, Mr. Hayes stated that residents e would be able to use the River Road Parks District's facilities after annexation by paying a user fee. In response to questions from Councilor Lindberg, Mr. Hayes stated that the petitions for annexation had been submitted April 22, 1983, and the one request for withdrawal had been voiced at the Planning Commission meeting of June 14. In response to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Hayes said that the map showing petitioners and non-petitioners did not designate those petitioners who had expressed an interest in withdrawal. Councilor Wooten said that there was a discrepancy in figures QJoted on property tax increases, and asked for clarification. Mr. Hayes replied that the taxes on a $60,000 home would probably increase by one-third. Mr. Gleason said that he did not think the average net increase would be that high. In response to a question from Councilor Hansen, Mr. Hayes said that this was not city-initiated, but a voluntary annexation request with 66 percent of the property owners making the request. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by councilors. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in support of the request: e Emerson Hamilton, 2159 Escalante, said that he spoke for the majority who were requesting annexation. He indicated that the area involved was a compact area contiguous to the city limits, and represented a logical boundary for the city. He reviewed the urban services and said that these services were needed now. Fire protection: He said he was not unhappy ~th the fire protection provided by the Santa Clara Rural Fire Department, but felt that the City of Eugene could provide equally good service. Parks and Recreation: He indicated that he was proud of the River Road Parks District, but noted that one could subscribe for their services at a reasonable rate, and that there was also the possibility that a contract would be signed between the City and the Parks District to provide services to residents. Public Works: He commented that the City had a well-functioning department and could provide the necessary services. Sanitary sewers: He noted that all residents in the area were currently on septic tank systems, and that many residents were concerned with the possibility of failure. Police protection: He commented that this was even more of a concern since the Lane County sheriffs were no longer available, but that service had been inade- quate before this. Mr. Hamilton stated that the petitioners considered the City of Eugene the logical provider of these services. There is no need for duplica- tion of these services. The petitioners are aware of the costs and are willing e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 P~e4 to pay fo r them. Those who did not si gn the peti tion either di d not want to be a part of any city, did not want property taxes increased by annexation, or felt e annexation would result in reduced property values. He urged the council to approve the request. Robert E. Moulton. 294 Sterling, deferred his time to the other speakers. Bruce G. Johnson, 2124 Silver Lea Court, reported that he had told the Planning Commission that 80 percent of the residents would prefer to be left alone, but that this was no longer a viable option. He stated that a task force was set up to study the alternatives and had reported that annexation to the City of Eugene was the most viable remaining option. He urged the council to grant the petition. John Hoag. 2155 Dalton, said that he was in favor of the petition for reasons already stated by previous speakers. He offered to respond to obj ections frOOl councilors. Speaking in opposition: Don Williams. 107 Mayfair, said he was the chairperson of the River Road Community Organization and felt compelled to speak in opposition to the request, particularly in view of the controversy over process. He said that only a weak case had been made for refusing petitioners the right to withdraw, and noted that the date of this public hearing had been changed from July 25 to July 11, with insufficient notice to some people who wished to testify and were now on v ac at ion. He also questioned whether sufficient legal notice had been given. Mr. Williams went on to state that if withdrawals were permitted this would no e longer be a triple majority petition. Noti ng that a petition for a proposed city of Santa Clara now had enough signatures for it to go to the Boundary Commission, he asked whether the City of Eugene was still the logical provider of services for this area. Mr. Williams said that he would like clarification on the likely increases in property taxes after annexation. Mr. Williams then went on to respond to Mr. Hamilton's list of services, nQting that most of them were non-issues. He said that the Santa Clara fire station would still be the closest to the area after annexation, and would probably be the provider of this service under contract to the City. He commented that the River Road Parks District was in financial trouble due to its shrinking tax base with these annexations; that Eugene's Public Works Department had a three-year waiting list for street lighting; and that sewers were going to be provided within the next few years whether or not the area was annexed. He noted that the provision of police protection was the only real issue. John Mehringer. 165 West Hilliard Lane, felt that this public hearing had not been 1 egally noticed. He urged the council to reject the petition. noting that it was not logical to annex a peninsula within the proposed city of Santa Clara at this time. He asked the council to reject the request or set aside the decision until proper notice of a hearing had been given. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 Page 5 v. Edwin Johnson, 694 Sterling Drive. said he was strongly opposed to the request. primarily because he did not wish to live in a city at all. He al so indicated that he was not comfortable with much of the process, and urged the . council to at least postpone their decision. Alan Wagner, 4502 River Road, said that there was no indication of how many petitioners would withdraw if they were permitted to do so. He questioned whether there would still be a triple majority if this happened. Speaking in rebuttal, Robert Moulton, 294 Sterling, said that no misleading statements had been used to convince residents to sign the petition. He asked where the people were who were wishing to withdraw. He said the supporters of the proposed city of Santa Clara were "anti-city," and the petitioners felt they would be better off as part of the City of Eugene. He urged the council to approve the petition. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Hayes responded to the testimony. He said that the tri pl e majority procedure was strict application of State law. Mr. Hayes responded to questions about service provisions by stating that the contract between the City of Eugene and the Santa Clara Rural Fire Department only involved areas north of Beltline Road. The City and the River Road Parks District were currently negotiating an in-lieu-of-tax agreement. Mr. Farah, Acting Planning Director, commented on the matter of adequate notice. He indicated that the statement had been made at the Planning Commission that e July 25 was the tentative date for City Council action. Mr. Swanson, City Attorney, said that adequate notice had been given under ORS 222.120. In response to a question from Councilor Lindberg, Mr. Farah said that the election regarding a city of Santa Clara would probably be held before the completion of the River Road/Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, but noted that the City was obliged to respond to annexation requests according to statute. It would not be appropriate to defer action on these requests for three or more years until the facilities plan is com~eted. Res. 3789--A resolution authorizing forwarding a recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located on the north side of Silver Lane. west of River Road to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of June 14, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Councilor Obie stated he intended to vote in support of the motion, since it was clear that residents of the area wished to become residents of Eugene. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 P ag e 6 Councilor Wooten also stated her support for the motion, on the grounds that it was a voluntary annexation. e Councilor Lindberg questioned whether the request met the requirements of the spirit of the triple majority rule, and said that he would vote against the motion. Roll call vote: motion carried 7:1, with Councilor Lindberg voting no. CB 2660--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County R-1 Single-Family Residential District to City R-1 Low-Density Residential District for property located on the north side of Silver Lane, west of River Road. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of June 14, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bill be read a second ti me by council bill number only, wi th unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at thi s time. Roll call vote: motion carried unanimously. Council bill 2660 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote: the motion carried 7:1, Councilor Lindberg voting no. The bill was declared passed and e numbered 19161. C. Amendments to Chapter 4 Concerning Disorderly Conduct and Prohibited Camping. Mr. Gleason introduced Les Swanson, City Attorney's office. who noted that copies of the proposed amendments had been sent to interested organizations including the City of Eugene's Police Department, Municipal Court Prosecutor, and the American Civil Liberties Union. He added that the onl y objection to the proposed changes had come from the ACLU to the "fighting words" provision in the ordinance. In response to a request by Councilor Wooten asking for an example of "fighting words," Mr. Swanson said that they were four-letter words which might cause a person to want to fight. Councilor Wooten asked whether this language was sufficiently vague as to cause a constitutional or moral problem. Mr. Swanson replied that in his legal opinion this language would be acceptable under the United States Constitution, and probably IIwould pass musterll under the Oregon Constitution. Councilor Wooten commented that she was not sure that she could support such an ordinance. In response to a question by Councilor Hansen. Mr. Swanson stated that the definition of a public place in the ordinance would cover restaurants and department stores. e MINUTES-- Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 P ag e 7 Councilor Holmer noted that subsection 2(g) needed a comma inserted in order for it to make sense. It shoul dread: IIUrinates or defecates in, or in view of. a public place, except in a lavatory; or,. II . In response to Councilor Lindberg's question on Section 2(e), Mr. Swanson said that this section on physical acts is not directed towards speech or sign 1 anguage. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in opposition to the proposed amendments: David Fidanque, 1756 Willamette, Suite 2, representing the Lane County Chapter, American Civil Liberties Union, stated that the ACLU had problems with the proposed disorderly conduct ordinance. Of particul ar concern was the fi ghti ng words portion, which he considered to be definitely unconstitutional under the Oregon Constitution. He stated that no law should be passed which should restrain the free expression of opinion. In addition, he said that the language in subsection 2(d) might be overbroad. Gordon Elliott, 938 Jefferson. expressed concern over subsection 2(g) in the context of incontinent older persons. There being no further testimony. the public hearing was closed. Mr. Swanson noted that Councilor Holmer's notation regarding Section 2(g) of the ordinance was well taken and would be corrected. Mr. Swanson responded to Mr. Fidanque's comments by noting that although Mr. . Fidanque was an expert in constitutional law, in his own opinion, the language in the ordinance on fighting words was constitutional. Councilor Wooten asked how quickly the language regarding fighting words could be changed. Mr. Swanson noted it could be done quickly, but not easily as he felt it is as good as it can be if there is going to be a provision on "fighting words. II Councilor Lindberg asked Mr. Fidanque if he had any alternative wording to suggest. Mr. Fidanque said that he felt it is impossible to draft a constitu- tional IIfighting words" statute in Oregon. Councilor Wooten stated she felt uncomfortable with the wording. Councilor Schue asked Mr. Gleason whether the community was having problems with fi ghti ng words. Mr. Gleason replied that there were situations. such as when epithets were leveled at young blacks that create furor, when police officers were powerless without a tool such as this. CB 2661--An ordinance concerning disorderly conduct, amending Section 4.725 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emerg ency . e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 Page 8 CB 2662--An ordinance concerning prohibited camping, amending Section 4.815 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an e emergency. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bills be read the second time by council bill numbers only. with unanimous consent of . the council, and that enactment be consi dered at thi s ti me. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to amend the language of subsection 2(g) of the disorderly conduct amendment to: "Urinates or defecates in, or in view of, a public place. except in a 1 avatory; or.. II Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Roll call vote on CB 2661. as amended, and CB 2662; motion carried unanimously. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bills be read the second time by council bill numbers only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bills 2661 and 2662 were read the second time by council bill numbers only. Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie. that CB 2661, as amended. and CB 2662 be approved and given final passage. Councilor Lindberg noted that the camping ordinance had been requested by the Vagrancy Task Force. e Councilor Holmer noted concern with Section 2(a) of CB 2662 where is says "and so forth. II Councilor Wooten asked whether the two bills could be dealt with separately so that consideration of the ordinance regarding prohibited camping could be postponed. Councilor Lindberg stated his support for the prohibited camping ordinance, noting that it was intended to sharpen the tool s avail abl e to the pol ice department for 1 aw enforcement, not as a mandate to II get tough. II Roll call vote; motion carried 7:1 with Councilor Wooten voting no. The bills were declared passed (became Ordinance #19162 and 19163, respectively). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11, 1983 P ag e 9 - II. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING: LEVYING ASSESSMENTS/REFERRAL TO JULY 18, 1983, HEARING PANEL A. First Reading/Second Reading on July 25, 1983 e CB 2663--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and storm sewer on Sam R Street from 11th Avenue to 12th Avenue; and on 12th Avenue from Sam R Street to Wallis Street; and on Wallis Street from 12th Avenue to 900 feet south (#83-15). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing July 18. 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration July 25, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2664--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer and storm sewer in Glenwood Boulevard from Glenwood Drive to 1100 feet south, and in Moon Mountain Drive from Glenwood Boulevard to Laurel Hill Drive; and sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lots 18-03-03-02-001100, 01200, 01300, 01302. Ms. Schue moved. seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing July 18, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration July 25, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e B. First Reading/Second Reading on August 8, 1983 CB 2665--An ordinance concerning assessments for paving and storm sewer on McKendrick Street from Graham Drive to Karyl Avenue; amending ordinance #19070 (82-08). Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Hearing Panel for hearing July 18, 1983, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration August 8, 1983. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to July 13, 1983. (Recorded by Jo Alexander) JA:cj/CM26b1 e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 11. 1983 Page 10