HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/1983 Meeting (2)
M I NUT E S
e Eugene City Council
City Council Chamber
October 10, 1983
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Emily Schue, Brian Obie, John Ball, Mark Lindberg, Betty
Smith, Richard Hansen
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Cynthia Wooten, Freeman Holmer
Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called
to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller.
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Appeal of West University On-Street Parking Pricing Program (memo,
background information distributed)
Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Assistant
Parking Administrator Jarvia Shu presented the staff report, reviewing the items
under appeal and the goals of the parking program. Ms. Shu outlined the proposed
implementation of the program, referring to a map illustrating the parking areas
e within the West University Neighborhood. She said the proposed program was a
response to the T-2000, Metropolitan, Transportation Improvement, and West
University Refinement plans, and Community Goals and Policies. She reviewed the
specific goals and policies within each of these plans that identified the West
University Neighborhood area as a critical residential area and those objectives
on which the parking program was based. Ms. Shu then reviewed the process by
which staff had developed the proposal before applying for Federal funding for
the program. She said that the program was given coverage by various public and
private media during the past 18 months. She said that during the past two
weeks the West University Neighborhood and the University/Community liaison
Committee had both voted to support the program with the assumption that staff
would study the feasibility of including the area between Hilyard Street and the
University in the project. She said concerns had also been raised over the
rates and boundaries set for the program. She said the council had reviewed
the basic program elements of the program in September 1982 and had approved the
submission of the grant application to the Federal government. In March 1983,
a public hearing was held at which the council approved the acceptance of Federal
ass i stance to impl ement the parki'ng program. She said that some latitude
existed within the Federal grant to modify the rates, boundaries, and program
elements. She said staff was recommending that the program continue as planned
and that program elements be adjusted during the demonstration monitoring period
based on actual impact.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 1
The public hearing was opened. Those speaking in favor of the appeal:
e Deborah Burt, 3495 Ferry Street, Euoene, said she felt the program was discrimi-
natory to Sacred Heart Hospital employees. She asked if the program would also
be in effect between 6 p.m. and 7 a.m., stating that people should not have to
pay to go to work and that a problem may be created in forcing people to walk a
great distance to work. She also said that any metering of spaces beginning at
7 a.m. would create a problem for night shift personnel who could not get out to
feed the meters. She said that the program might increase the crime rate during
the night hours.
Ron Nunemaker, 3160 Harris, Eugene, said he had resided in a quad-apartment at
1728 Ferry from March to September 1983. He said that during that time he had
received several Woonerf newsletters, none of which mentioned the implementation
of the parking program until a few weeks ago. He said that he never had diffi-
culty finding a parking space within a few blocks of his Ferry Street apartment
and said that no problem exists. He referred to an incident when an individual
had been recording license plates. He said he was told to mind his own business
when he questioned the individual. He said that the area population is mostly
transient in nature and that the vehicles are probably not registered to local
addresses. He restated that he has never had a problem parking in the area.
Referring to the staff statement that cancellation of the project may result in
long-term effects in funding of other City projects, Mr. Nunemaker said that the
City had initiated the program and now was afraid to back out of it.
Jeanne E. Harcleroad, no address given, said she was Director of the Nursing
Program at Lane Community College. She said that in her program many students
e traveled to and from various agencies during the early morning and late evening
hours. She said the Sacred Heart parking facility could not accommodate the
students; therefore, the parking program would force the students to walk great
distances on foot during those hours. She felt the situation created by the
program would endanger the students and that she was working with Sacred Heart
Hospital to resolve the problem. She said she was concerned for the safety of
her students and any additional cost that may be incurred by the students.
Brian Burleigh, 1525 Inglewood, Eugene, said he has spent at least eight hours a
day on those days when he attended classes at the University during the past
three years. He said he had always parked free in the West University area
during that period because most of his classes were located on the west side of
campus. He said he did not support the program and did not want to be part of
it, emphasizing that he was appalled at the price being set for the parking
permits. He said he was a student living on a fixed income and had not figured
on an additional $50 per term for parking. He said he had discovered that the
City did not have a decisive program in authenticating West University residents
when he applied for and received a free parking permit. He returned the permit
to the City staff, stating that the program was creating a potential black
market among students. He said that property taxes had already reduced his
savings and he did not want to spend additional money for parking in the West
University area. He resented the fact that this was the first opportunity that
he had known about to voice his opposition to the program, after the parking
sign posts were already in place. He also resented that he had not been invited
to speak in the same manner in which the West University residents had been
e invited to speak in support of the program.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 2
Patrie Smith, 2875 Taylor Street, Eugene, said he represented the Office of
Student Advocacy, a branch of the Associated Students of the University of
e Oregon (ASUO). He referred to point #2 of the memo submitted to the council,
stating that a survey had been conducted on October 8 to inventory on- and
off-street parking in the West University area. He said 170 properties of the
200 inventoried had garages, carports, or other off-street parking. He ques-
tioned the West University Neighborhood study which quoted a 70-percent figure
of non-resident cars parked on the streets, asking how many of the cars were
owned by residents who had off-street parking available. He felt the program
was incomplete because true parking needs had not been determined. He agreed
that the potential for a black market for parking permits did exist. He also
asked the council to compare this program with the South University Neighborhood
Area preferential parking program, noting that taking half the streets out of
the free parking realm had proven to be a reasonable alternative.
Barbara McCarth~, 500 East 16th Street, Eugene, Assistant Coordinator for
University Affalrs for the ASUO, said she realized that much time had been spent
in developing the parking program for the WUN area, but added that the process
and solution left much to be desired. She said that parking sign posts were
placed and permits went on sale prior to the public hearing. She said that
institutional administrators, and not the affected groups, were asked for input
during the process, which took place during the summer when most students were
out of town. She questioned the expenditure of City funds to invite input in
support of the program. Ms. McCarthy said the rate structure was prohibitive to
students, stating that finances were the primary reason students drop out of
school. She emphasized that the University was Eugene1s largest employer, yet
this policy alienated the students from the City. She stressed that money spent
e on parking permits would not be spent in the area stores. Stating that the
distributed brochure was unclear, she questioned staff on how the permits would
be allocated to ensure only residents received the free permits. She asked if
the present boundaries were permanent, or would more money be spent in future
modifications? She asked how the rate structure was determined and on what the
fees and fines would be spent, suggesting that this money be used to improve
public transportation to the campus. She questioned why the sign posts were
installed on a Saturday when labor expenses were high. She felt a poor brochure
and unavailable staff had left many questions unanswered. She suggested that
program implementation be delayed to allow input from University students and
employees as well as other employee groups.
Terri Krupka, 1625 Henderson, F2, Eugene, said she was an employee of the Bureau
of Land Management and she was concerned that BLM employees had not been given
voting rights on this issue. She said the parking problem appeared in mid-
September, adding that a low-rate parking program should be instituted for
students. She said that the money she usually spends in downtown Eugene would
stop if this program were implemented. She acknowledged that rapid transit was
being encouraged, but she questioned the need for two bicycle lanes on Alder
Street where parking was needed. She expressed her concern for the safety of
individuals who must work odd hours. She said a survey of parking lot fees did
not support the notion that the program would deter students from parking on the
streets. She asked that staff develop alternatives to the program.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 3
Jim Williams, 2870 Riviera Court, Springfield, Manager of the University
e Book store, said he was speaking on behalf of some of his employees who were
concerned with the lack of reasonable parking if the program were implemented.
He felt that adequate concern for employee parking needs had not been considered
and the area encompassed in the proposal was too far-reaching. He suggested
that adoption of the proposal be postponed until these concerns were studied.
Sandra Bond, 1200 West 4th Street, Eugene, said she was an on-call employee at
Sacred Heart Hospital and therefore worked a variety of shifts and hours. She
said she usually came to work or left work in the dark, and she did not want
to walk any distance from the hospital in the dark. She said she has always
managed to park within two or three blocks of the hospital on a well-lighted
street during the eight-and-a-half years she has worked there. She said public
transportation did not operate at the hours when she traveled to and from work.
She also explained that adequate parking in the Sacred Heart parking structure
was not available due to the overlap in shift hours. She questioned why the
curbs within a three- or four-block radius around the hospital were painted
yellow when the new structure was completed, thereby removing needed parking
spaces.
Donald Smurthwaite, 2550 Bowmont Drive, Eugene, said he also worked at BLM,
the second largest employer in the WUN area. He said the BLM employees also
resented not being informed or included in the decision-making processes.
Mr. Smurthwaite said the City could not charge for a service that it could not
guarantee. He questioned the study by the City that attributed 70 percent of
the cars parked in the area to commuters, stating that the bulk of the problem
lay in the densely populated University area and that the proposed program
e would solve nothing. He suggested that the City eliminate many of the unused
two-hour parking zones in the area south of 13th Avenue between Oak and Hilyard
Streets, stating that many of these areas were not used during the early morning
or afternoon hours. He said the program represented a commuter tax, another
example of the City failing to understand the problems of its residents. He
said he sympathized with the residents' problem, but stated the City was over-
looking the true factors creating the problem. He said people would not pay
over $200 per year for a non-service and that the congestion would continue
at the same level.
Greg VanDyke, 729 East 11th Avenue, Eugene, thanked the council for the oppor-
tunity to review the parking program. He hoped the meeting would demonstrate
enough concern that the council would temporarily rescind or modify its previous
decision. He read a petition signed by 371 Eugene residents opposing the
proposed West University Neighborhood parking program, stating the program
failed to account for all the parking needs of residents within the area. He
said the proposal was a good attempt, but it was too inflexible to be effective
over such a diverse area. He said he lived in a fraternity one-half block from
the program area, explaining that most of the fraternity's parking was in the
program area because there were only 23 parking spaces on Alder Street. He
said the members of the fraternity were not being given equitable parking for
the amount of money they spend in the West University area. He felt the proposal
appeared to be an attempt to raise revenue for the City, forcing students to pay
for parking. He said the parking fee was not a deterrent to parking as stated
by staff.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 4
Tom Slocum, 2175 Fairmount, Eugene, said he was opposed to the parking program,
stating that it was an outgrowth of the WUN Refinement Plan. He said he was a
e property owner in the area and had not been apprised of the plan. He said the
basis of the WUN and its idea of being a majority vote was erroneous. He said
~e was opposed to the plan because only resident property owners were given
lnfonmation on the program, even though a majority of the property owners were
absentee landlords. He said most of the residents that would have voted on the
program were not in school and therefore were out of the area. He said the
program was dominated by a group who felt themselves chosen to decide. He said
the neighborhood had lived with the parking situation for many years, stating
that developers have been required to establish on-site parking for any new
development while some old houses have been made into multiple-units without
adequate parking. He said that alternatives were available for the older houses
and apartments without parking and that the program was unnecessary. He said
the city as a whole must be considered but that a separation had developed
between the City and the University, stating that both should promote their
common interests. He said that it did not make sense for the City to spend
money on a parking program when the large Hult Center deficit existed. He felt
a direct subsidy of the transit district should be given before implementing
this program.
G. V. Stathakis, 830 Hilyard, Eugene, said the program was another bad recommen-
dation by staff. He said the program would affect the Sacred Heart Hospital
employees, students and employees of the University, poor people and women
especially. He said he observed nurses walking to and from the hospital and
that the program would create a bad situation for them. He said it appeared the
City was getting into competition with the Diamond parking lots and that some
e alternative program should be developed, possibly using Jobs Bill money.
Those speaking in opposition to the appeal:
Jamie Douglas, PO Box 3695, Eugene, President of the University Small Business
Assoclatlon, said the association supported the proposed experimental plan. She
said the decision was reached after several meetings with Ms. Shu. She said one
of the concerns of the businesses in the West University area was the lack of
parking, adding that businesses would directly benefit by the increase in
customer parking created and the increased feeling of parking opportunity in
the area. She said the USBA would monitor the program and would evaluate each
aspect of the program. She said the association felt the program directly
addressed some of the major concerns of area businesses and therefore deserved
a chance.
John Hart, 1224 Mill Street, Eugene, said he had lived in the area for ten years
and that finding parking had always been a problem. He said he empathized with
the area employees, but stated it was the responsibility of the employers, and
not the WUN, to provide parking. He hypothesized an example of a neighbor with
numerous friends visiting on a continuing basis and he described the effect it
would have on the neighborhood. He urged support of the program, stating that
the interests of the residents and the commuters were the same. He sairl the
large institutions in the area should provide parking for the employees and
students.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 5
Harold Lannom, 460 East 15th Avenue, Eugene, said he represented the WUN,
e stating that the group had unanimously voted to support the plan and suggested
that a study be performed within 30 days with the intent to include the area
east of Hilyard Street in the plan. He said he personally supported the plan,
stating that he was made aware of the parking problem as early as 1978. He said
the plan addressed this concern, referring to the data listed in the plan
appendix. He said the data showed that people would use alternative trans-
portation if improvements were made. He explained that the improvements were
made to control the demand for parking, but added that the problem still existed,
and therefore the problem must be addressed from the supply side. He said the
plan also addressed the problem of locating off-street parking, stating that
this type of parking was continually under-utilized, six years after the first
study identified the problem. He said that Sacred Heart had stated that parking
was available for all its employees. He said staff had the data necessary to
make any necessary adjustments in the program. He commended staff for its data
collection before implementing the program. He said both on- and off-street
parking was expensive, but he asked the council to consider who would bear the
costs. He said the WUN, once blighted by crime, was taking on a new look and
that pride in the neighborhood was developing. He said the council was responsive
to the needs of the area and that support for the program was needed. He said
the program must be given a chance.
Bill Sullivan, 534 East 14th Avenue #4, Eugene, said he lived and operated a
business in the WUN area, as well as raising two small children. He said the
problem was real, describing the inconvenience to guests and the hazards to
residents by individuals looking for parking. He said the problem was caused by
the limited parking and the hope of free parking. He said the solution to
e the problem was consolidation of the available parking, as proposed in the plan.
He said the 6,500 residents of the WUN supported the plan, adding that the area
east of Hilyard should be included to also solve the parking problem for those
residents. He stated that approximately 4,000 of the 6,500 residents were
students and that people in the area paid higher rents for the privilege of
parking and walking to the University and area businesses. He said the commut-
ers were looking for a free ride, and that while he did not want to punish them,
he did not want to subsidize them. He said the Planning Commission and, his-
torically, Sacred Heart Hospital, supported the plan and that present ambivalence
of the hospital was an insult to its nurses in the WUN and to the council who
had approved the Sacred Heart parking structure. He said this structure was
usually only one-third full, stating that the program would force parking in
the structure. He urged the council to stop subsidizing commuters to the area.
Wickes Beal, 712 East 16th Avenue, Eugene, said she was in favor of the program,
as were all the residents in the area. She said the inclusion of the area east
of Hilyard was also supported, referring to several letters previously submitted
to the council which addressed this issue. She applauded the reason behind the
program, but stated she was sorry that the above area had been excluded. She
said staff apparently had reasons for excluding the area, possibly due to the
numerous multiple-unit dwellings, and stressed that the residents of this
area should be included. She said the residents did not feel it was the City's
responsibility to provide free parking and that they were willing to support any
idea developed by staff to provide parking. She hoped the council would adopt
the WUN recommendation to include the area east of Hilyard Street in the program.
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 6
Ed Beal, 712 East 16th Avenue, Eugene, said he had listened to the discussion
e and agreed that no one was happy with the situation. He described the parking
problem as a grim game of musical chairs, with commuters competing against
residents. He said he sympathized with the commuters looking for parking
spaces, but stressed that the residents of the WUN did not compete with the
commuters in their own neighborhoods. He said he and his wife only used one
space in front of their residence, stating that they did not feel the space
belonged to them. He asked the council to consider the residents in making its
decision. He said the program was well-planned, but he asked for the additional
study of the area east of Hilyard Street.
Adrienne Lannom, 460 East 15th Avenue, Eugene, said she lived and owned property
in the WUN area. She said she supported the solution presented by the parking
program, stating that the issue was one of right-of-way versus right-of-stay and
that no one was guaranteed a free on-street parking space. She stressed that
the council had previously decided that the residents deserved the right to
on-street parking. She said the choice and cost of transportation were two
of the inherent factors in one's employment. She said the issue of equity for
employees throughout the city existed, stating that many downtown employees had
to pay for parking. She said the counci~ had heard many complaints and fears
from the WUN residents on previously adopted plans, the council stating that
such plans would have minimal impact on the residents, but the result was that
she still could not find parking in her neighborhood. She said the program
might not be the solution, but it should be given a chance.
Charlotte Lemon, 1280 Mill Street, Eugene, said she had been a resident of the
area for many years, explaining that at one time it was required for all residents
e to have off-street parking. She said she had a garage, but it was necessary for
her, her guests, and service personnel to park on the street on some occasions.
She said the problem did not disappear at the end of the day and that her
guests continually had difficulty finding parking space. She said staff had
been quite thorough in checking on the program, although some questions still
existed. She said that although opposition to the program existed, most people
would accept the change over time. She suggested that the program be implemented
and the problems ironed out during the demonstration period.
Norman Babcock, 374 West 4th Avenue, Eugene, stated he did not live in the WUN
area, but he was one of the proverbial car-haters. He stressed that another
energy crisis was possible and that people should make more use of public
transportation and bicycles. He said that the buses charged a comparable rate
to private vehicles, but he recognized that the bus system might be inconvenient
to some people. He said that the University and Sacred Heart Hospital should
have lockers and dressing facilities available for those people who use alterna-
tive transportation. He said it cost approximately 35 to 40 cents per mile to
operate a private vehicle. He reiterated that Eugene was growing and the days
of free parking were over. He said the program was a good opportunity for the
council to address the future.
M. Steven Baker, 360 East l~th Avenue, said he purchased a house in the WUN area
in 1975 and currently lived there with his daughter. He said he strongly
supported the program, stating that he had been a student at the University and
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 7
therefore knew both sides of the issue. He said the situation was becoming
increasingly difficult, stating that it was impossible to park within a block of
e his house between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. He said the northern part of the area
served as a parking and storage area for most of the day. He stated that the
problem also included concerns for publiC safety with the increased traffic and
the garbage left by passing motorists and pedestrians. He said he was surprised
at the slow response to the parking problem, stating that the City of Salem had
50 residential parking zones. He described the problem of finding parking close
to his home and asked the council to consider this in its decision.
lone Pierron, 1360 Ferry Street, Eugene, referred to a letter submitted to the
council which addressed her three concerns with staff1s implementation of the
program. She said she supported the program in its concept, but she expressed
the fOllowing concerns: staff not keeping residents informed of the program nor
seeking input from the residents; staff allowing the wishes of a commercial
building to override the needs of the residents; and staff limiting the program
to daytime hours although aware of nighttime parking and safety prOblems.
She said the idea to expand the program area might be worthwhile, but stated
that the grant was for preferential parking in the Woonerf area only and that
a second grant should address the additional area.
Mayor Keller stated that the time allowed for publiC testimony had ended, but
allowed the following speakers to add their testimony.
R. W. Talbot, 2500 West 22nd Avenue, stated that he was speaking neither for
nor against the proposal. He said that the objectives outlined by staff were
well-founded, but that some problems existed in the program implementation. He
e said he had received information on the program as a business owner in the area
and that he was dismayed at the inclusion of the area north of 15th Avenue
between Oak and High Streets in the program. He stated that this was not a
residential area and that the parking was already limited to two hours. He said
the program would cause additional parking problems in this area and he asked
that this area be excluded from the program.
Marcia J. Cutler, 1588 Patterson, Eugene, speaking neither in favor nor in
opposition to the program, said she had previously lived in the area for ten
years and had returned to the area last year with her son. She said her immediate
area was not as bad as the area near 13th Avenue because it was more residential
and quiet but was still close to services. She said she was basically in favor
of the program, but she did not like the signs. She hoped that some alternative
to the signs could be developed. She also said that the safety of the residents
should be addressed, stating that the two-hour limitation on parking might
increase the amount of traffic in the area.
Howard Parmon, 1108 Laurel, Springfield, speaking in opposition to the program,
said he represented his BLM co-workers. He said the employees were united in
their opposition to the program, stating that they objected to the general
restrictions and to paying for something that was previously free. He said
conflicting factors existed in the City wanting to attract new businesses, yet
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 8
demanding additional money. from area employees. He said that he had only
recently learned of the program and was unable to learn if the number of permits
e issued would equal the number of spaces available. He said sufficient notice of
the program had not been given. He submitted a petition signed by 86 BLM
employees in opposition to the program. The petition stated that the program
was ill-conceived and asked the council to reconsider the issues before making
any decision.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
The meeting was recessed at 9:10 and reconvened at 9:20 p.m.
Ms. Shu, addressing questions raised during the public testimony, said the
program would be in effect from 7 a.m. until 6 p.m. She explained that the
recording of vehicle license numbers was part of a study of parking turnover and
not to determine the residence of the owner. She said that staff had worked
with the University and Sacred Heart Hospital during the planning process. She
said the hospital staff had stated they could handle any shift from on-street to
off-street parking and the University said that it had spaces renting for $18
per year which were not utilized. She said the City was also working with the
hospital to promote an employee ride share program. She explained the installa-
tion of the sign posts went to the lowest bidder by contract; therefore the
weekend installation of the poles did not result in any additional cost to the
City. Regarding the inclusion of any additional areas in the program, Ms. Shu
said that staff wanted to implement the program as proposed, but would begin to
study the feasibility of including the area east of Hilyard Street. Ms. Shu
said enforcement of the program would be postponed until November and that
- permits purchased for October would be honored in November.
Mr. Whitlow said he wanted to correct for the record that the program was
not designed to raise revenue. He explained that the program was a two-year
demonstration project with a cost of $550,000 and that the Federal grant was
for approximately $240,000. He said the difference in the two figures would
be raised by the selling of permits.
In response to a question, Jim Hanks, City Traffic Engineer, explained that the
$17.50 fee for permits was based on market costs for parking in the area. He
said the fee was set at a level that would accommodate and provide incentive to
use transit or alternative parking facilities. He said the Federal grant
allowed for the start-up costs, public information, and for the professional
evaluation of the program as charged by the Federal government. He said
that staff hoped the program would be self-funding if continued. He stressed
that the program was a demonstration project and that the fee could be modified
to meet budgetary goals or other desires. He said that preliminary projections
supported the goal to be self-supporting at the end of the two-year period if
anticipated permit sales were achieved. He said the ongoing cost of the
program would be approximately $125,000 per year.
In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said the shift overlap at Sacred Heart
Hospital was taken into consideration and could be covered by the two-hour free
parking in the area. He said the permits would be sold at five or six businesses,
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 9
as well as at the Paratransit Office. He explained that the free permits were
e good for one year and were being distributed by the City in an attempt to
preclude any fraud. He said that guest permits, granted for a specific period
of time, were also available at the Paratransit Office.
In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said the opportunity to create additional
parking spaces was limited. He explained that the yellow curbing mentioned
earlier had been implemented for safety reasons. He said that the available
free parking hindered any plans to build a pay parking structure in the area.
He explained that diagonal parking was not considered due to increased visibility
and other safety problems. Mr. Hanks said that the program could not solve all
the problems, but it was flexible enough to be adjusted during the demonstration
period.
In response to questions by Councilor Obie, Mr. Hanks said he did not have the
figures on single-family residences and single-family residences with off-street
parking in the study area, but he said there were 1,100 on-street parking spaces
in the area. Mr. Hanks, responding to a comment made during the testimony, said
the two-block section between Oak and High streets was a trial meter section
added on an experimental basis and that it was beyond the scope of the program.
Parking Administrator Duane Bischoff, responding to a statement by Councilor
Lindberg, said the figure of 1,800 parking spaces referred to the entire WUN
Refinement Plan area. In response to Councilor Obie's question, Mr. Bischoff
said the WUN plan included a demand of 650 to 900 on-street parking spaces for
the residents; therefore, this was probably the number of spaces lacking. He
said there were 389 single-family and duplex structures in the area, with about
e 490 residential groups. He added that there were 314 structures for multiple-
family and group quarters, with 2,365 residential units. He said that he was
assuming that these residences provided their own parking, except for the
650-900 spaces as stated earlier, based on the Zoning Code requirement of
1-1/2 spaces per dwelling unit.
Councilor Lindberg commented that a differential rate structure might be neces-
sary, stating that the southern and western portions of the study area had less
need for the $17.50 fee incentive. Mr. Hanks said that it would be feasible to
incorporate such a rate structure based on lower demands for permits in those
areas. He added that it could be within the scope of the grant to develop a
merit system and offer lower rates to low-income students such as at the Sacred
Heart structure. He said inequities found in the program could be resolved
during the demonstration period.
Responding to a question by Councilor Lindberg, Mr. Hanks said he had not heard
the issue of crime in the WUN area specifically addressed in this program, but
he said that the area had been identified as a high-crime area and was being
addressed in other programs.
In regard to possible abuses of the program, Mr. Hanks said much was being
attempted on trust in order to make the program easier on the users, with the
intent to create a system allowing good neighbors with relaxed enforcement.
He said that evidence of a black market would result in more stringent
requirements.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 10
Responding to the process involved in developing the program, Mr. Hanks said
e staff had relied on the institutions to make contact with their employees, which
apparently was not adequately done. He said that all individuals involved must
be given the opportunity to provide input on the program for evaluation. He
said the input was important throughout the demonstration period and said he
welcomed the comments given during the testimony.
In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said the budget was developed on a month-
by-month basis and the effect of dropping the $17.50 fee could not be easily
determined. He said that part of the budget was based on enforcing the fee in
the neighborhood. He said that other revenues anticipated in the program were
fines and forfeitures for violations and daily permits. Mr. Hanks explained
that the demonstration project was based on the two-hour spaces with permits
being sold to commuters and that dropping the permits would remove the program
from the demonstration project. Mr. Hanks said that ongoing evaluations would
be performed during the two-year period and a final report would be presented at
the end of the project. Mr. Hanks said he was not sure of the number of spaces
to be eliminated with the implementation of the Woonerf project, but he felt
that it would not be a substantial number of spaces overall.
In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said that no limit would be placed on the
number of parking permits sold, but he added that there would be no more permits
sold than the number of individuals now parking for free. He suspected that the
number of individuals parking in the area would be reduced due to the cost of
the permits. He explained that the City regularly sold more permits than spaces
in the downtown structures. He added that the study would determine those areas
with high demands for parking. Mr. Hanks said that a limit on the number of
e free permits had not yet been set, stating that the system had been used success-
fully in the South University area.
In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said that Sacred Heart Hospital was pro-
viding 784 parking spaces, of which only 650 were demanded. He added that an
additional 156-342 parking spaces outside the parking structure were demanded,
possibly due to shift overlap. He said that the University of Oregon quoted a
demand of 1,130 spaces over the number available for employees and a surplus of
130 spaces for students. Mr. Hanks commented that these numbers were question-
able and that he would study them further.
Responding to a comment by Councilor Schue, Mr. Hanks said he did not have any
information on the utilization of the Sacred Heart parking structure. He said
the shift overlap did create a double demand on parking, but he added that there
was usually a substantial reservoir of parking after the shift change. He said
that some employees might not use the structure because they already assumed the
difficulty in finding a parking space. He said he had performed several hospital
studies throughout the country and he said that hospitals did not stagger their
shifts due to the shift changeover routine. He added that Sacred Heart was
staggering its quitting time for nurses, allowing some individuals to leave when
there was a decreased demand, but he said this created a problem in carpooling.
In response to a question, Mr. Hanks said it was possible that the BLM employees,
as well as other individual employees, were not notified during the planning
process. He said that notices were placed on windshields of cars parked in the
e area prior to the implementation of the program.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 11
Mayor Keller commented that there were still some answers which the council did
e not have in regard to the program. He suggested postponing the issue to give
staff time to develop those answers. Councilor Schue said the figures were
interesting and she would like to have them, but she felt they were not vital
to a decision.
Councilor Ball said he was uncomfortable with selling permits to individuals for
a space that they possibly could not have. He was concerned with the lack of
input from the involved groups and individuals, stating that they should have
been put into the process much earlier. He said that any solution developed by
staff would suffer from this lack of input. He said the implementation of the
project should await this input rather than making changes during the demon-
stration period. He was also concerned that the University and Sacred Heart
Hospital were apparently passing on their responsibility to provide parking for
their employees and students to the City. He said he was unsure how these
institutions could be made more accountable, but stressed that they and the
involved employee groups should be involved in the program. He said he opposed
the implementation of the program at this time and encouraged staff to develop a
study involving the above groups. He referred to an offer by the University/
Community Liaison Committee to help resolve any conflict. He commented that he
felt it was appropriate to include the area east of Hilyard Street in the program.
Councilor Obie said he agreed with the comments of Mr. Ball and stressed that
caution and concern should be used in implementing the program. He stressed
that many affected individuals had not been contacted and that their concerns
were important. He stated that the stated goals of the program might be too
simple and that a more appropriate goal would be to enhance the livability of
e the area. He said that differentiation was being made among residents, students,
employees, and visitors and this action might be beyond the authority of the
council. He suggested that a single-family residence in this area could be
allowed one on-street parking space without a curb cut rather than the regularly
required two spaces. He said he wanted to know the specific numbers involved
before attempting any change in this area. He also stated his concern that the
Autzen Stadium area was not being utilized, suggesting a trolley could be
operated between the stadium and campus. He said that a substantial amount
of money was being spent to remedy a situation when the answer might not be
available. He said he would support a delay on the implementation, adding that
any progress of the program should be made with caution.
Councilor Lindberg said that while he would not object to a delay of two to four
weeks, stating that more input from the public was needed, he did not feel the
delay would solve the difficulty. He said the parking problem had developed
over the past 15 years and that the residents had assumed the cost burden. He
said that the University, the hospital, and the other institutions should have
been involved in the process and should have assumed more responsibility for the
problem. He suggested that students and employees in the area should discuss
the problem with their employers and institutions, but stated that a solution
could not be reached in less than a month. He suggested moving ahead with the
program and then establishing a process to adjust the system. He said he would
wait two to four weeks to implement the program, but he stressed that more
involvement and input were necessary.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 12
Councilor Schue said she was sympathetic to Mr. Lindberg's comments and would
e agree to wait another month if the council wished. She questioned how long the
program could be delayed without losing the grant. She said the meeting was
necessary in that it aired many issues, demonstrating the conflicting interests
and the absence of any true solution. She said it also demonstrated that people
only become involved when they are directly affected. She said the point had
been reached where action must be taken, but she said she would be willing
to wait if some useful adjustment could be made. She felt the program should
proceed, stating that the problems would not be solved without first implementing
the program. She said the program should proceed with an understanding that
adj ustments woul d be made for the benefi t of all.
Councilor Smith said she would support a two to four week delay, but questioned
the possible financial impact of such a delay. Mr. Hanks responded that a delay
of that length would not have a financial impact since enforcement of the
program would not begin until November 1. He said the longer the delay, the
greater the impact would be and the less time for evaluation of the program at
the end of the two-year period. Ms. Smith said the council was not attempting
to skirt the issue and stated that she would support the delay.
Ms. Schue moved that the City Council delay implementation
of the West University On-Street Parking Pricing Program until
November 1, 1983, to allow more input from interested groups.
City Attorney Tim Sercombe said the council must rule on the appeal, as well as
delaying of the program implementation. He said the council should include any
desire to delay their decision on the appeal in their motion.
e Mr. Hanks commented that implementing the program on November 1 might be a
problem due to the December vacation period and the absences of some residents.
He said that the November 1 date would still be feasible, even with these
technical difficulties.
Councilor Schue said it was her intent to implement the program on November 1,
thereby denying the appeal.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilor Ball said he was willing to implement the program, but he would be
willing to wait one month to allow the interested groups time for input and to
allow any reasonable changes to be made. He said that a permanent process
should be established, with a report being brought to the council, to involve the
major institutions in the area in the problem.
Mr. Lindberg moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the City Council
deny the appeal and delay implementation of the West Univer-
sity On-Street Parking Pricing Program until December 1, 1983.
Councilor Hansen said he was concerned that the process might be delayed,
stating that the concerns would still exist in 30 days. He said Sacred Heart
Hospital would probably not address the needs of its employees until forced to
do so. He said the decision must be made either to accept the program or to
- refuse the Federal grant.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 13
Councilor Ball said he would support the motion as stated and commented that
e Sacred Heart must be forced, if necessary, to address the needs of its employees.
Ms. Schue said she wished to see the program begin and that she would compromise
on the length of the delay. She said she would support the motion as stated.
Mr. Lindberg reminded the council that it had already accepted the Federal
grant, but it had not accepted this specific manifestation of a parking program.
Councilor Hansen questioned why the program was being delayed if the decision
to implement it had already been made. He said the same concerns would still
exist after 30 days. Mr. Ball responded that he would not support proceed-
ing with the program without the 3D-day delay. He said that a tremendous
amount of information had recently been discussed between the involved groups.
He said the 3D-day delay was to include those individuals who had not provided
input into the project.
Councilor Obie said he would not support the motion, explaining that he was not
convinced that the plan was the best solution to the problem.
Mayor Keller restated the motion. He stressed that some figures existed that
might be important in making a decision on the program. He said it was not the
City's responsibility to provide free parking to University students. He said
that he advocated people being allowed to park their cars on the street in front
of their residences when they wished, but he realized that council had histori-
cally not felt this way. He said he would vote against the motion because he
felt the program was unfair. He said it was appropriate to deny the appeal,
thereby asking staff to develop some responses. In response to a question,
Mayor Keller said he did not feel the majority of the council would be willing
e to deliberate further on the program if the appeal were denied this evening.
Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to amend the motion to
have the City Council postpone its decision on the appeal until
November 9, 1983.
Mayor Keller said the council needed the information to make the best decision
possible. He said the possible impact of the Woonerf program on the parking
program was an important issue and any information available on the issue should
be considered. Mayor Keller said there was already a motion on the floor and
therefore Mr. Hansen's motion was inappropriate.
Councilor Ball said that Mr. Lindberg's motion allowed for revision if any
councilors wanted input into the process. He said that the council must accept
the fact that staff was more informed on the issues involved and that concerns
should be addressed to them. He said the motion to deny the appeal still
allowed adjustment of the program according to the concerns of individuals
involved and therefore addressed Mr. Hansen's concerns.
In response to a question, Mr. Whitlow said staff would like to present the
issue again, with the details and factual information available, to the council
on November 9, rather than waiting until December. He said that too much
delay would cause problems in meeting the Federal guidelines for the program.
Mr. Lindberg said it was his understanding that denying the appeal tonight would
mean the program would be implemented in one month and delaying the decision on
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 14
the appeal would delay implementation until December 1. Mr. Hanks stressed that
any delay would reduce the time for evaluation, but it would also allow for some
e adjustment to the program. He said there would be no significant problem in
delaying if staff was assured of an affirmative vote on November 9, but he added
that any wholesale changes after that would pose a problem in implementation by
December 1.
Councilor Hansen said he would vote against the motion and that he wished to
postpone the decision until November 9, 1983, when more information might be
avail abl e.
.
The motion failed, 4:3; Councilors Schue, Ball, and Lindberg
voting aye; Councilors Smith, Obie, and Hansen voting nay; Mayor
Keller broke the tie by voting nay.
Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, that the City Council
postpone its decision on the appeal on the West University On-
Street Parking Pricing Program until November 9, 1983.
The motion carried, 5:1; Councilors Schue, Lindberg, Smith, Obie,
and Hansen voting aye; Councilor Ball voting nay.
Councilor Hansen asked staff to layout the Woonerf Project so that the council
could walk through the area.
Councilor Obie said he wanted to know the number of single-family residences
without available off-street parking for the November 9 meeting. He said he was
e not comfortable with the program and did not feel that more information would
change his mind. He said he would be more inclined to assign parking spaces to
those residents without off-street parking. He said he would like to solve the
problems of the people residing in the area.
Ms. Smith left the meeting.
B. Annexation/Rezoning Request for Property Located West of the Willamette
River and South of Stults Street from County RA Suburban Residential
District, RG Garden Apartment Residential District, RG/X Garden
Apartment Residential District with Site Review Procedures, C-2
Neighborhood Commercial District and C-2/X Neighborhood Commercial
District with Site Review Procedures to City RA Suburban Residential
District, R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District, C-2/SR
Community Commercial District with Site Review Procedures and appli-
cation of Outlying Commercial Sign District, and PL Public Lands
District (R. P. Clemens) (A/Z 83-7) (memo, maps attached; background
information under separate cover)
Assistant City Manager David Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Tom Hayes of
the Planning Department presented the staff report. He reviewed the staff
notes, stating that the request included 30 tax lots under 18 ownerships and was
a triple majority annexation request, explaining that this meant that a majority
of the property owners, representing a majority of the area, and the assessed
value. were in favor of the request. He said 12 of the 18 property owners had
petitioned for the annexation. representing 65 percent of the property owners.
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 15
74 percent of the area's value, and 80 percent of the total area. He referred to
e the materials distributed, stating that the existing zoning of the properties
was Commercial and RA zoning within the county and was developed with strip
commercial, some City-owned park property along the Willamette River, and
several single- and multi-family residential dwellings located throughout the
site. He said that all the property owners in the area of the request were
contacted to discuss the request. He referred to a letter opposing the annexa-
tion from Clark Hollis, stating, however, that Mr. Hollis had favored the
annexation at the commission public hearing. He also referred to a letter
from Robert Thompson, owner of Tax Lot 800, which stated that he was neutral in
the annexation issue but that he favored RA zoning for his property. Mr. Hayes
outlined the changes to the initial request as listed in the October 10 memoran-
dum from the Planning Department to the council. Mr. Hayes distributed a letter
from John I. Mehringer, dated August 2, 1983, which was inadvertently excluded
from the staff material. Mr. Hayes summarized the letter which stated that the
River Road Community Organization board unanimously felt that the annexation
was untimely, illogical, of little benefit to the properties involved, and
deleterious to the community at large, the proposed city of Santa Clara, the
River Road Park and Recreation District, and the City of Eugene. In regard to
the timing of the request, Mr. Hayes said staff was recommending that the
council approve the request and forward it to the Boundary Commission for its
consideration. He explained that the incorporation of Santa Clara would be
heard in November so that this issue, scheduled to be heard by the commission in
December, might be moot. He said that Eleanor Mulder of the Planning Commission
was present to answer any questions of the council.
There were no statements of ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest. The
e staff notes and minutes were entered into the record.
The public hearing was opened.
Wayne Helikson, 111 East 11th Avenue, Eugene, stated that the proponents of the
annexation felt that all tests have been met and that the decision was now up to
the Boundary Commission. He said that the annexation would be stopped at the
commission level if the city of Santa Clara were incorporated, or the annexation
would be in line to become part of Eugene if the incorporation proposal failed.
He asked the council to approve the request.
John Mehringer, 165 West Hilliard Lane, Eugene, requested that the feasibility
study for the proposed city of Santa Clara be entered into the record of this
annexation request. He asked that the council consider its responsibility to
the remaining residents of Eugene and asked staff to calculate the assessed
value of the annexation area. Referring to a previous council action in which
the City would pay $2.50 per thousand of assessed value to the River Road Parks
Department in order to continue services to newly annexed areas, he said the
council may wish to speak to the situation of why these 50 residents in the
annexation area would get a higher per capita park payment for services than
other Eugene residents. He stated that a zone change request for tax lots
17-04-24-4, 3400, 3700, and 3800 was presently pending. He said the property
was owned by R. P. Clemens, Inc., the chief petitioner in the annexation request.
He asked the council to consider this fact in its decision. He said the pro-
posed zone change within the county was from County C-2 to County C-3 to allow
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 16
recreational vehicle sales and services. Mr. Mehringer said the proposed City
e zoning of C-2 would not allow that use, even as a conditional use. He said the
City's annexation and zone change would not be heard by the Boundary Commission
until December 1 if it were approved by the council, but the County will make
its decision on the County zone change on October 27. He said that the property
would possibly enter the City zoning as a non-conforming use.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Hayes stated that the County zone change request had been discussed with
Mr. Helikson and that staff was not opposed to the County C-3 zoning as it was
mostly compatible with the City C-2 zoning. He explained that RV sales and
service were allowed under the City C-2 zoning, but added that the question of
whether the RV included some manufacturing had been discussed. Mr. Hayes said
that annexations often included some non-conforming uses and staff could only
assume that the use would fit under the City.s non-conforming status in the
zoning ordinance.
Mr. Sercombe said that the property annexed to the City would enter under the
City zoning of C-2/SR, irrespective of the County zoning.
Res. 3803--A resolution forwarding a recommendation to the Boundary
Commission for annexation of property located west of
the Willamette River and south of Stults Street to the
City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater
Service District.
e Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the
annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and
minutes of August 2, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; and
that the resolution be adopted. Roll call vote; the motion
carried unanimously, 5:0.
CB 2686--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County C-2 Neighbor-
hood Commercial District, C-2/X Neighborhood Commercial
District with Site Review Procedures, RG Garden Apartment
Residential District, RG/X Garden Apartment Residential
with Site Review Procedures, and RA Suburban Residential
District to City C-2/SR Community Commercial District
with Site Review Procedures, and application of Outlying
Commercial Sign District for property located west of the
Willamette River and south of Stults Street.
CB 2687--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County RA Suburban
Residential District to City RA Suburban Residential
District for property located west of the Willamette
River and south of Stults Street.
CB 2688--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County RA Suburban
Residential District to City R-2 Limited Multiple-Family
Residential District for property located west of the
Willamette River and south of Stults Street.
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 17
CB 2689--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from County RA Suburban
e Residential District, RG Garden Apartment Residential
District, RG/X Garden Apartment Residential District with
Site Review Procedures, and C-2/X Neighborhood Commercial
District with Site Review Procedures to City PL Public
Lands District for property located on the west side of
the Willamette River and south of Stults Street.
Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting
the rezonings as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and
minutes of August 2, 1983, be adopted by reference thereto; 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; the motion carried
unanimously.
Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bills be approved
and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present
voting aye, the bills were declared passed (and became Ordinance
No. 19186 [CB 2686], Ordinance No. 19187 [CB 2687], Ordinance
No. 19188 [CB 2688], and Ordinance No. 19189 [CB 2689]).
C. Abatement of Nuisance and Unsafe Building at 1862 Kincaid Street
(memo, resolution attached)
Mr. Whitlow introduced the agenda item. Larry Reed, Assistant Superintendent
of Building Inspection, presented the staff repQrt. He reviewed the history of
e the property since May 1981 when the City Housing Inspector found 17 major code
violations. He said the notes of the inspector indicated that the owner would
begin repair of the property in summer 1982. No repairs were made as promised,
although the house was again rented to students in the fall of that year.
Mr. Reed said that letters, dated September 21, 1982,'were sent to the owner
threatening abatement or court action. The property was again posted in April
1983 by HCC housing inspectors and the property fil~ was turned over to the
Building Division on July 1, 1983. Mr. Reed said he then ordered a title/lot
book search which stated the last deed of record was to a Christopher J. Sipe.
He said that the report indicated there were three years of unpaid taxes to the
County, totaling $3,600, plus some other judgments against the property.
Mr. Reed said that he, on behalf of the City, wrote a dangerous building notice
to the owner on July 28, 1983, posted the building on July 29, 1983, and sent
letters to Christopher J. Sipe at a Portland address and in care of a Donald
Sipe at 4318 Southwest Altadena Avenue in Portland. Mr. Reed said that there
was no contact by the owner throughout the summer and the matter was referred
to the City Manager's Office on August 2, 1983, and on September 28, 1983, the
council called for this publiC hearing. He said that the City Recorder's
Office, when posting the notice of public hearing, found students liVing in
the building after the property had been posted, contrary to the posted notice.
Mr. Reed said he again visited the site on September 30, 1983, and verified that
the building had been rented to five students. He said the students had told
him they were told by Mr. Sipe to remove the notice. Mr. Reed said he notified
the students that they were in violation of City Code by occupying a posted,
unsafe structure. He said no further contact was made with the City until
e
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 18
e October 10, 1983, when a contractor applied for a permit to repair and rebuild
the front and rear steps of the building. He said the owner contacted him later
that day and he had inspected the building at 2 p.m. Mr. Reed said he found the
property to be in worse condition than imagined, having sewer problems, (sewage
on the floor, water dripping through the first floor) and wiring problems.
He stated that the upstairs was a fire hazard because the wiring was done
with extension cords. He said there was no ceiling in the living room, the
furnace/heating system was in very poor condition, there was an unapproved/unsafe
woodstove, the shingles on the house were deteriorated, and there was evidence
of carpenter ants and termites. He also said the rear porch was unsafe and
other violations existed. Mr. Reed said the house was obsolete and he estimated
the cost of fixing just the hazardous items at between $7,000 and $10,000,
stating that the cost might be higher after examining for any structural
damage due to the ants and termites. Mr. Reed said the owner and his contractor
were present at the hearing.
The public hearing was opened.
Christopher J. siRe, R. D. Box 263, Newberg, stated that he was the owner of the
building at 1862 incaid. He disagreed with Mr. Reed's description of the
house's condition, stating that the only dangerous items were the front and rear
steps. He said he was working with a contractor to have this condition remedied.
He said the kitchen ceiling was torn out to repair some plumbing and would be
replaced within the week. He explained the raw sewage present in the basement
was due to major plumbing work. He acknowledged that some retro wiring work
could be done upstairs in the building. He asked if a time frame could be
e established to repair the house, stating he would like to have a year to perform
the required repairs. He said he had received only one notice, referring to the
HCC notice, and stated he had talked with HCC staff at that time. He said he
had heard of the present hearing through a tenant at the building.
There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Reed said it was his professional opinion that the house should not be
occupied, stating the hazards in terms of the electrical safety and the struc-
tural problems were too great. He said the property should be brought up to
code. He said that the building was not ready to fall down, but the plumbing,
electrical, and other safety items were major violations. He said the council
should consider passing the resolution, giving the owner some time frame to
rehabilitate the house. He stressed that the owner must be aware that the
rehabilitation must be done completely to eliminate those hazardous conditions.
In response to a question, Mr. Reed explained that passage of the resolution
would give the owner a time line to perform the work. He said that if the work
were not completed within that period, then the City could complete the abate-
ment by demolition or by performing the rehabilitation. Mr. Sercombe added that
the resolution would give the City the option to abate the nuisance either by
correction of the deficiencies or by demolishing the building. He said this
would be an administrative choice of the staff if the resolution were passed.
He said that the owner would have 15 days to correct the deficiencies under the
time frame of the resolution or the City could then correct the deficiencies if
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 19
it chose to do so. He said the owner would have 30 days to apply for a building
e permit, and the City could demolish the building if no application were made
within that period. He explained the choice of the corrective measure was up to
the staff in order to compare the cost of correction with the cost of demolition.
In response to a question, Mr. Reed said the resolution would take precedence if
the owner obtained a building permit but did not take any action. He said staff
would expect the owner to make timely progress in terms of the time line estab-
lished and that staff would fall back on the resolution if such progress were
not made. Mr. Sercombe said the permit application was tied to the power to
demolish, stating that if the corrections were not made by October 27, 1983, as
set forth in the resolution, the City could perform the work and place a lien on
the building. He said the City could demolish the building if the owner did not
apply for a building permit, but staff would have to ask the council for a
demolition authorization if the permit had been obtained.
In response to a question, Mr. Reed said he did not know if the building would
qualify as a potential rehabitation loan. He said he had informed the owner to
investigate this option with the Eugene Development Department. Mr. Sercombe
said he did not believe the property would fall within the HUD guidelines for
properties needing rehabilitation.
In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe said that there were not enough cases to
set a specific time frame for returning action to the council if the owner did
not correct the deficiencies. He said that the issue would probably be brought
back to the council if no action had been taken by the owner by January I, 1984.
e Mayor Keller commented that there appeared to be enough stopgaps in the process
to allow the owner time to take appropriate action, although not as much time as
the owner would have had when the process began in 1981. He said it was reasonable
to expect appropriate action to take place.
Res. 3804--A resolution ordering the abatement of the building
located at 1862 Kincaid Street.
Ms. Schue moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution.
Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously; 5:0.
The meeting was adjourned to October 12, 1983, at 11:05 p.m.
(Recorded by Thorn Strunk)
TS:ce/CM7al
-
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 10, 1983 Page 20