Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/30/1985 Meeting M I NUT E S - Eugene City Council City Council Chamber January 30, 1985 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Emily Schue, Richard Hansen, Freeman Holmer, Ruth Bascom, Debra Erhman (12:15-1 :45), Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller. The adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by Council President Cynthia Wooten in the absence of His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. LOC Workshop for Newly Elected Officials e Councilor Schue said the L-COG presentation for newly elected officials on February 21, 1985, will be worthwhile. B. Retiring Planning Commissioners' Party Councilor Hansen reported that the party for retiring planning commissioners was an enjoyable evening. C. Board and Commission Assignments Councilor Rutan pointed out two of his committee assignments were not noted on the publicized list. They are the Joint Parks Committee and Riverfront Park Study Team. He feels his committee assignments are comparable to those of other councilors. D. Irish Festival Councilor Rutan suggested councilors plan to attend the Irish Festival March 14 and 15, and asked staff to distribute information to the council on this event. E. Voters Pamphlet Councilor Holmer said the State and/or City legislation concerning voter pamphlets will be discussed at a legislative subcommittee meeting February 1. Mr. Hansen asked about readership of the State pamphlet; the possibility of including other jurisdictions, such as the school district, in a local pamphlet; and the cost of a local pamphlet. Ms. Wooten would prefer to have legislation amended so that issues of initiative review are included 4It in the State voter pamphlet. Councilors discussed the possibility of MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 1 - publishing a voter pamphlet or an informational bulletin for the March 26 election. Mr. Hansen would like to consider it. F. Letter From SHO Councilor Bascom referred to a thank you letter from the Eugene Arts Foundation and asked staff to respond with a thank you for the bike racks. G. Letter From EWEB Councilor Schue also referred to a letter from EWEB concerning its opposition to the Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) rate increases. Ms. Wooten thought council supported the EWEB position. Mr. Gleason said the mayor is preparing a letter to BPA, the matter will be discussed at the League of Cities meeting in Washington, D.C., and a resolution will be presented to the council. Ms. Wooten suggested a resolution of the council with a cover letter from the mayor be forwarded to EWEB and Peter Johnson, BPA administrator. Mr. Holmer would like David Stockman, United States Budget Director, to receive a copy of the resolution and letter also. H. Report on Ticket Scalping Ms. Wooten asked the Police Chief, James Packard, to investigate ticket scalping at sporting and entertainment events. I. Announcements e Ms. Wooten announced the following council appointments which were made at a special meeting held January 28, 1985: Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Partnership: Bob Fenstermacher, 3505 Spring Blvd, term to expire January 1,1986; Tom Hoyt, 975 Oak, term to expire January 1, 1986; and Jeanne Wagenknecht, 120 South Park, term to expire January 1, 1986. Downtown Commission Mary Young, 3305 Olive, to fill unexpired term of Hugh Prichard ending December 30, 1986. J. Appointments 1. Consideration of Mayor's Nominations to Airport Commission, Construction Code Board of Appeals, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission, and Joint Parks Committee (memo distributed) Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to appoint the Mayor's nominations to the following boards, committees, and commis- sions: - Airport Commission Robert Bolton, 665 Spyglass Dr., term to expire Jan. 1,1989 MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 2 e Construction Code Board of Appeals James Balzhiser, 860 McKinley, term to expire Jan. 1, 1990 Gary Peoples, 3315 West 14th, term to expire Jan. 1,1990 Jim Vos, 272 Van Buren, term to expire Jan. 1,1990 Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission Patricia Hocken, 3135 W. 14th, term to expire Feb. 1,1988 Joint Parks Committee Steven Alberty, 260 East 11th, term to expire Jan. 1,1989 Donna Kernutt, 733 Spyglass Dr., term to expire Jan. 1, 1989 Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. 2. Notification of Mayor's Task Team on Airline Service (memo distributed) Ms. Wooten announced Mayor Obie's nominations to the Airline Service Task Team will be considered when he is present at the next City Council meeting. II. PROPOSAL FOR MONTHLY INDUSTRY PRESENTATIONS (memo distributed) e City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Councilor Rutan discussed a program he had suggested to the council previously. He proposed a 10-15 minute presentation to the council once a month by a representative of local industries. The presentations would inform the council of one of the many industries in the community and present general thoughts about opportunities and problems. Mr. Rutan will organize the program. The presentations will be industry oriented, not company oriented. Several councilors commented on the proposal. Mr. Hansen recommended approval of the proposal with the caveat that the presentations should concern an industry, not a specific company, and that the proposal may be reviewed in less than six months if councilors are not comfortable with it. Although she realized industrial development is important, Ms. Bascom suggested the council would benefit from presentations from some social service agencies and some departments of the University of Oregon. Ms. Erhman agreed with Ms. Bascom. Ms. Schue did not want a bland overview although she realizes specific companies should not be advertised. She finds individuals and the special things they have done interesting and informative. Ms. Wooten was concerned about the appearance of promoting one business over another. She agreed with Ms. Bascom and Ms. Erhman. Ms. Wooten suggested a report from the Vagrancy Task Force as a possible topic. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 3 - Responding to comments, Mr. Gleason said presentations can be scheduled on some Wednesdays easily. Other Wednesday agendas are quite full. The council seemed to want presentations from industries and other segments of the community. He suggested the staff schedule at least one presentation a month whenever possible. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, to support Mr. Rutan's proposal for presentations by industrial representatives once a month before the council and to include presentations about other activities in the community. Commenting on the motion, Mr. Hansen suggested the staff work with councilors in choosing the activities to be presented and Mr. Holmer suggested the program be reviewed in two or three months. Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously, 8:0. e III. ORDINANCE DESIGNATING PUBLIC CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD (memo attached, ordinance distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the item. Dave Biedermann of the Purchasing Division gave the staff report. He said the 1983 Oregon Legislature abolished the State Public Contract Review Board and delegated the authority to local governments. The ordinance designates the City Council as the Public Contract Review Board and specifies the council's powers when it acts as the Public Contract Review Board. Regulations governing the exercise of those powers will be presented to the council in the future. Answering questions from Ms. Erhman and Ms. Wooten, Mr. Biedermann said the council will probably consider exemption of specific contracts and disqualification of bidders. For example, the council might act if an article is available from only one source because bids would not be needed. The 1983 legislation created an advisory committee which included vendor, public, and governmental representatives. He had talked to local vendors about the proposed process. They favored it. Mr. Sercombe said the council has been designated as the Public Contract Review Board in the City Code since 1976. e CB 2805--An ordinance concerning public contracts; designating the City Council as the Public Contract Review Board; adding Sections 2.1200, 2.1205, 2.1210, and 2.1215 to the Eugene code, 1971; repealing Sections 2.856, 2.857, 2.858, 2.859, 2.860, 2.861, 2.862, 2.863. 2.864, 2.865. 2.866, 2.867, 2.868, 2.869, 2.870 and 2.871 of that code; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 4 - Council Bill 2805 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Ms. Schue, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19307). BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND LOAN REQUEST~memo attached) IV. e City Manager Micheal Gleason said the Business Development Fund Loan Advisory Committee recommended a loan to a firm in which a principal is a City employee. Regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development require the council to be aware of the loan. Responding to a question from Ms. Erhman, Mr. Gleason said the $10,000 loan will purchase a computer for the company. The committee which reviews loan applications recommended it. Ms. Erhman thought there might be an appearance of impropriety because the loan will have a favorable interest rate. Mr. Holmer shared her concern. He would like a policy prohibiting loans to businesses in which a City employee is a principal. Mr. Rutan pointed out no council action was required on the loan. The council simply had to acknowledge that the loan was made. Mr. Gleason discussed the history of the business development loan program and said the council decided that the committee should consider the fiduciary responsibility of businesses and the economic development goals of the community when making decisions. If the council wished to change the policy, that action should be separated from the acknowledgement required by Federal regulations of this loan. He did not feel there was any impropriety in this loan. Ms. Erhman suggested the matter be scheduled for additional discussion by the council. Mr. Hansen said City employees are also citizens. They should not get preferential treatment, but he wondered if a prohibition against their receiving loans would not eventually extend to people on City committees and boards. He was comfortable with the loan. He suggested the council review all the loan programs of the City and the council role in them. Ms. Wooten pointed out the loan was approved by the Loan Advisory Committee, the applicant fulfilled the requirements, and the council wished to discuss a policy concerning City loans to City employees and review all the City loan policies. Ms. Wooten suggested Mr. Smith report on what the City has in addition to business loans. The meeting was recessed briefly at 12:45 p.m. Ms. Wooten reconvened the Eugene City Council in a work session in the McNutt Room at 12:50 p.m. She announced the postponement of consideration of ~ business license revisions (Item VI on the agenda). MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 5 e e e V. PESTICIDE SPRAYING RIGHT-TO-KNOW ORDINANCE (ordinance attached) Ms. Wooten introduced Dave Gordon of the City Attorney's office who had prepared the ordinance concerning the right-to-know about pesticide spraying at her request. She planned to discuss the ordinance and suggest some changes. However, at Mr. Hansen's suggestion, she first discussed the reasons for the ordinance. She had received many calls from people who are concerned about the use and effect of pesticides within the city. Some people want to be able to avoid parks and lawns which have been sprayed and some people are concerned about pesticides that drift. She had been told of one case in which pesticides sprayed on bushes drifted into an open window. Sprays also drift from trees among small urban lots. People want to know when and what is sprayed. She did not intend to regulate or ban the sale of pesticides or argue about toxicity. She wanted people to know about pesticides so they can choose where to go and what to do with their gardens. She understood the City has a good integrated pest management program. Mr. Miller thought some people who apply pesticides may not have understood the proposed ordinance. It could impact businesses. He suggested a task force be appointed to study the issue. He agreed that people have a right to know. Mr. Hansen wondered about City policy concerning toxic sprays. Tim Rhay of the Parks Department said the City uses sprays only when a problem has been documented. Then sprays which will have the least impact on the environment are used. There is no notification program and there does not seem to be a problem. Mr. Hansen did not want to debate the proposed ordinance until he was convinced there is a need to address the issue. He suggested people who apply pesticides be included in a study group. Mr. Holmer said the regulation of pesticides is important, but there are extensive State and Federal laws regulating them. It is important to rely on the judgement of individuals. Ms. Wooten pointed out that other jurisdictions do not have regulations concerning the public's right to know about pesticide applications. Mr. Sercombe said Federal regulations do not concern notification and Federal regulations do not preempt the proposed ordinance. Ms. Erhman had been contacted by people on both sides. She said much spraying is done early in the morning and people do not know it is done. Some people who apply pesticides have not understood the proposed ordinance. The council work session is the first step in a process of considering the issue and had been scheduled for some time. Ms. Wooten said about 15,000 commercial pesticides are made in Eugene each year and probably home owners do as many or more applications. Pesticides do drift. People have a right to know what is happening. Commenting on the proposals, Mr. Rutan wanted additional information about the issues from several sources. Ms. Schue had questions about the proposed ordinance, but she thought there is a "right to know." She suggested the council decide whether the issue warranted time. Mr. Holmer wanted to hear MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 6 e Ms. Wooten's suggested changes in the proposed ordinance. He suggested the council hold a forum in which many people could discuss among themselves the issues. Ms. Erhman left the meeting at 1:20 p.m. Ms. Wooten said the proposed ordinance would apply to commercial and private sprayers in certain circumstances. It does not just apply to commercial applicators. Section (d) on Page 3 should be changed from "Premises open to the public" to "Publicly owned land." State and Federally owned land is exempt. In the following Section 6.482 on Page 4, Ms. Wooten said bracketed material should be deleted. e Pesticides - Permit Required. No applicator shall use or apply pesti- cides [in or] upon premises open to the public, in or upon rental premises or upon trees greater than six feet in height, without first obtaining a permit [from the parks department]... Ms. Wooten suggested permits be required for commercial and private applicators under certain circumstances. The permits might expire on December 31 of each year. A permit system might be eliminated if the City would print rules about application and notifi- cation which would be distributed where the pesticides are sold. The reason for a permit system is to let people know how to notify neighbors. In the following Section 6.486 on Page 4 Ms. Wooten said bracketed material should be deleted and underlined material should be added. Pesticides - Restriction on Use. No applicator or public applicator shall use or apply pesticides outdoors when the true wind velocity at the level and site of application or use exceeds [five] eight miles per hour. Because commercial applications of pesticides can average 200 applications a day, Ms. Wooten suggested either the commercial applicator, the property owner, or the occupant be responsible for notification. Notification consists of two dates or a specific weather condition. A post card could be used for notification. Section 6.490 (2) could be amended to eliminate the need for notification after spraying trees on private property. Notification for 3 days applied only to apartment complexes. Ms. Schue felt making people responsible for signs for three days was unreasonable. Ms. Bascom had studied and had experience with pesticides for some time. She is sensitive to the health problem, but she did not think a solution is available. People must restrain their use of chemicals. She did not think a manageable law can be written. The complications are greater than the dangers. She suggested communication among neighbors be encouraged. Mr. Miller did not want to enact an ordinance that people will not follow or that will force people not to spray. - Ms. Wooten will discuss the comments with Mayor Obie and suggest he appoint a subcommittee of the council to consider the background information, call upon people in the community for additional information, and recommend action to the council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Hansen left the work session at 1 :40 p.m. e VI. RIVER ROAD/SANTA CLARA LAND USE ELEMENT STATUS REPORT (memo attached) Jim Farah of the Planning Department discussed the land use element of the River Road/Santa Clara Plan. He said the primary change involved the Irving Road Industrial area. Planned Unit Development procedures will be recommended to control development. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Jim Hale of the River Road/Santa Clara Policy Committee said additional strip development is prohibited. Businesses can expand to the rear, but they can not expand laterally. Mr. Holmer said the degree of consensus in the Policy Committee and the Citizen Advisory Team is remarkable. The meeting was adjourned at 1 :45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~"*'1.4.. ~..,,/- .//" /;, ~ /~''''1;':''' ',. { --~. . Micheal D. G eason City Manager ~ (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:je/16l6C e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 8 " M E M 0 RAN DUM ~. January 30, 1985 To: Mayor and City Council From: Micheal D. Gleason, City Manager Subject: PUBLIC CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD The enclosed ordinance designates the City Council as the Public Contract Board for the City of Eugene. In the past. the State of Oregon administered the process for all political subdivsions. It interpretated purchasing statutes and public contracting law, exemption of certain contracts or classes of contracts from the competitive bidding process, and so forth. Eugene operated its purchasing system under a local procedure through our general home rule authority. .. The 1983 Oregon Legislature abolished the state board, and gave the option of local contract review responsibility to local jurisdictions. Given our local tradition of self-management of this responsiblity, it is important that we update our City Code to conform to the 1983 legislative changes by establish- ing the Council as the Public Contract Review Board. Most local political bodies have opted to designate contract review boards. If a political subdivision does not take action, the local county assumes review authority. Lane County did not form the county level review board, but designated the State Director of General Services as its review avenue. Therefore by statute, City contract review currently resides with the State. State review is charged back to recover costs, and review is not by a board, but by the State Director of General Services. Thus the City level of public contracting control is subject to State determination at City expense. We are recommending this ordinance to adjust to changes in local governing authority, and are requesting it be approved as an emergency to allow a smooth transition into public contracting and purchasing for the City. A copy of the ordinance is attached. .- " ~ - e e M E M 0 RAN 0 U M January 15, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Micheal Gleason, City Manager SUBJECT: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FUND LOAN REQUEST We are at this time prepared to extend a loan commitment from the Business Development Fund to Pacific Nautilus, Inc. However, this corporation's president is a City employee. In such cases, our procedure is to determine whether there is a conflict of interest in extending a commitment. At the request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development this item is on your agenda. It is before you to gain your concurrence on the City Attorney's assessment of the loan request and have such concurrence reflected in the Council minutes. Lauren Chouinard is the president of Pacific Nautilus. As the City's Employee Health and Fitness Director, his position does not bring him into contact with administration of the Business Development Fund. We are of the opinion that a loan to Pacific Nautilus does not constitute a conflict of interest. JS:jk/Thb19 e e e OROINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OR SPRAYING OF PESTICIDES; ADDING SECTIONS 6.480, 6.482, 6.484, 6.486, 6.488, 6.490, 6.492 AND 6.995 TO THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; AMENDING SECTION 6.990 OF THAT CODE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sections 6.480, 6.482, 6.484, 6.486, 6.488, 6.490 and 6.492 are hereby added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to read and provide: Pesticides 6.480 Pesticides - Definitions. Far purposes of sections 6.480 to 6.492 the fallowing words and phrases mean: (a) Dwelling unit means a structure or the part of a struc- ture that is used as a home, residence or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household or by two or more persons who maintain a common household. "Dwelling unit" regarding a person who rents a space for a mobile home but does not rent the home home means the space rented and not the mobile home itself. (b) Pesticide includes any of the following that are regis- - tered by the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America: (1) Defoliant, which means any substance or mixture of substances intended for causing the leaves or foliage to drop from a plant with or without causing abscission; (2) Desiccant, which means any substance or mixture of substances intended for artificially accelerating the drying of plant tissue; Or-:-H ~a:1ce - 1 ."..., .....-.----------- ...---'--..--.--. --,--'--'-'" -.- e (3) Fungicide, which means any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any fungus; (4) Herbicide, which means any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any weed; (5) Insecticide, which means any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects which may be present in any environ- ment whatsoever; (6) Nematocide, which means any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating nematodes; (7) Plant regulator, which means any substance or mix- ture of substances intended, through physiological action, to accelerate or retard the rate of maturation or to otherwise alter the behavior of ornamental or crop plants or the pro- duce thereof, but shall not include substances to the extent that they are intended as plant nutrients, trace elements, nutritional chemicals, plant inoculants or soil amendments; (8) Any substance, or mixture of substances intended to be used for defoliating plants Dr for preventing, destroying, repell ing or mitigating all insects, plant fungi, weeds, rodents, predatory animals or any other form of plant or animal life which is, or which the parks department may de- clare to be a pest, which may infest or be detrimental to vege- tation, humans, animals, or be prese~t in any environment the reo f . e - Or::i.nance - 2 - e e ~ (c) Pesticide applicator, or applicator, means a person who: (1) Is spraying or applying pesticides; and (2) Is authorized to work for and is employed by or is a pesticide operator. . (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsec- tion, pesticide applicator, or applicator, includes a private applicator. (d) Premises open to the public. Premises which by function, custom, usage, notice or lack thereof, their physical nature or other circumstances at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that permission to enter or remain is not required; pro- vided, however, that the phrase shall not apply to or include any buildings or structures erected upon such premises. (e) Private applicator means a person or the personls agent who uses, supervises, or causes. the use'of any pesticide on rental premises on land owned or leased by.that person, or on trees greater than six feet in height growing on land owned or leased by that person. (f) Pesticide operator means a person who owns or operates a business engaged in the application of pesticides upon the land or property of another. (g) Public applicator means a person who is an employee of any county, city, municipal corporation, irrigation district, drainage districts or public utility and who performs or carries out the work, duties or responsibilities of a pesticide applicator. (h) Rental premises means a dwelling unit and the structure of ~hich it is a part and appurtenances therein and grounds, areas and facilities held out for the use of the tenants generally or rihose use is promised to the tenant. - (i) Tenant means a person entitled under a rental agreement to occupy a dwelling unit to the exclusion of others. 6.482 Pesticides - Permit Required. No applicator shall use or apply pesticides in or upon premises open to the public, in or upon rental premises or upon trees greater than six feet in height, without first obtaining a permit from the parks department. Any permit issued. shall expire on December 31 following issuance. e 6.484 Pesticides - Permit Fee. Applicants for a permit shall file with the parks department an application, which shall be accompanied by a $10.00 application fee. Application fees shall not be refunded. The application shall set forth the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. 6.486 Pesticides - Restriction on Use. No applicator or public applica-. tor shall use or apply pesticides outdoors when the true wind velocity at the level and site of application or use exceeds five miles per hour. 6 . 488 Pesticides - Prior Notice Required. e (I) Rental properties. Written notice of intent to use or apply any pesticide in or upon rental premises shall be delivered by the applica- tor or public applicator to tenants of the rental units not more than 72 or less than 24 hours prior to use or application. (2) Trees. Written notice of intent to use or apply any pesti- cide upon trees greater than six feet in height shall be delivered by the applicator or public applicator to owners and occupants of all properties located within 150 feet of the tree upon which the ~esticide is to be used or applied not ~or~ than 72 or less than 24 hours prior to use or applica- -....,'------.,-'-.,._;........-,.;"'_..,.".......-.-.. -.-.,._--~----_.... e e e (3) Contents of notice. Any notice required by this section shall include the expected time and date of use or application and the brand name and common chemical name of the active ingredients of the pesticide to be used. (~) Delivery. Any notice required to be delivered by this sec- tion may be delivered by personally delivering the notice to the person entitled to notice; or by delivering the notice at the dwelling house or usual place of abode of the person entitled to notice, to any person over 14 years of age residing therein; or, if the person entitled to notice main- tains an office for the conduct of business, by leaving the notice at such office during normal working hours with the person who is apparently in charge; or by mailing the notice to the person entitled to the notice by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, at least five days prior to use or application. 6.490 Pesticides - Post Application ~arnings. (1) Outdoor. After use or application of any pesticide on trees greater than six feet in height or upon premises open to the public, the applicator or public applicator shall erect and maintain warning signs. The warning signs shall be constructed of rain resistant material and shall be rectangular in shape with dimensions of at least 8~ by 6". At least one sign shall be erected for every 1000 square feet of premises upon any part of which the pesticide is used or applied. If more than one sign is erected, the signs shall be distributed evenly around the perimeter of the area upon whiCh the pesticide is used or applied. If the pesticide is used upon a single tree, a single sign immediately adjacent to the tree shall be erected and maintained. Any warning sign required by this subsection shall have a white field and the following information shall be printed in black letters at least 3/4 inches in heig~t: Ordin,J.nce - 5 e e e (a) The name and telephone number of the applicator or of the public agency employing the public applicator; (b) The date and time of application of the pesticides; and (c) The brand name and common chemical name of the active i~gredient of the pesticide app1ied. (2) Any warning sign or notice required by this section shall be maintained for at least 72 hours following the use or application of the pesticide. 6.492 Pesticides - Exemption. The provisions of sections 6.480 to 6.492 of this code are not applicable to pesticides used only for experimental or research purposes. Section 2. Section 6.990 of the Eugene Code, 1971 is hereby amended by deleting subsection (2) thereof; renumbering subsection (4) to (2); re- numbering subsections (5) and (6) to (4) and (5) respectively; and adding a. new subsection (6), to read and provide: 6.990 Penalties - Specific. (1) Any person who willfully fails to present the. designated vehicle to the police department within the time specified in section 6.220, or willfully fails to present evidence that the vehicle shall no longer be operated on a public way in the city, shall upon conviction be punished by fine of not to exceed $100.00. {t4t}1fl Any person who violates any provision of sections 6.225 to 6.235 shall be punished, upon conviction, by a fine not to exceed S100.00. {f2t V1e~ae1e"-of-d"y-eehe~-~eee;o"-;"-th;~-ehepee~-;~-p~";,hable ej-f;"e-~o~-te-e~eeed-528e~ee~} (3) Violation of section 6.305 to and including section 6.310 is punishable by a fine of a minimum of S100.00 to d ;Dax;:num of 54,000.00 for O:-dinance - 6 e e e each tree removed, or confinement in jail not to exceed 100 days, or both fine and imprisonment. In addition, the city attorney, upon request of the city manager, shall institute any necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of sections 6.305 and 6.310 of this code. ft4t An1-~e~!On-~ne-.;etdte!-dn1-~~o.1!;On-Of-~eee1en!-6~225-~e 6~23S-~ndlt-ee-~~ni!nea.-~~6n-e6n.ieei6";-BY-d-f1ne-noe-to-exeeed-$t88~8e~1 ffStllil Any person who: (a) Violates sections 6.400 to 6.470 of this code or any provision of a wastewater discharge permit, or (b) Knowingly makes any false statement, representation or certification in any application, record, report, plan or other document filed or required to be maintained pursuant to sections 6.400 to 6.470 of this code or a wastewater discharge permit or who knowingly falsifies, tampers with or renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under sections 6.400 to 6.470 of this code or a wastewater discharge per~it, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed $500 for each day in which such violation occurs. ft6tl~ The remedies provided for in section 6.470 of this code and subsection (5) of this section shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any and all other remedies available to the city. ~ Violation of section 6.490 is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine not to exceed $200.00 for each day that the violation exists. exists. Section 3. There is hereby added to the Eugene Code, 1971, a new sec- tion 6.995, to read and provide: 6.995 Penalties - General. Violation of any other section in this chaDter is Qunishable bv .fine not to exceed 5200.00. - - ., .' .- - .- - - , ._---_._.~ ---..--...-.--.---'"- ._---- e e e Section 4. That the provisions contained herein concern the public health, welfare and safety and therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor. ~ Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this day of , 1984 day of , 1984 City Recorder Mayor Ordir.ance - 8 e M E M 0 RAN DUM January 25, 1985 To: From: Mayor And City Council Planning Department Work Session -- River Road/Santa Clara Land Use Element Subj: I. BACKGROUND In 1983, the cities of Springfield, Eugene and Lane County initiated work on a joint planning project in the River Road and Santa Clara area. The basis for that action is found in the acknowledged Metropolitan Plan. Work on the Urban Facilities Plan (UFP) has progressed rapidly. The first element, the Sanitary Sewer Element, was adopted in May of 1984. That document provided the basis for a $5.9 million grant application to construct sewers in the area. That application was successful, and construction of sewers in the River Road/Santa Clara area should begin in the spring of 1985. On December 10, 1984, the Council conducted its public hearing on the Land Use Element of the UFP. The Council closed the public hearing on this item and is tentatively scheduled to take action at its meeting of February 27, 1985. Lane County is scheduled to take action on February 19th. e II. RR/SC POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION As a result of testimony presented at the Council's hearing, the RR/SC Policy Committee (councilors Ehrman and Holmer represent the Council on this Committee) reviewed some proposed changes to the draft Land Use Element. At . the Policy Committee1s meeting of January 10, 1985 it voted to recommend to the Council and Board of County Commissioners, changes to the text as shown in Attachment A. The majority of the changes reflect efforts to clarify policy statements. However, Recommendation #1, Page 2-29 was reworded to require the use of Planned Unit Development procedures when development of the industrial area on Irving Road occurs (the original draft had required Site Review procedures). The intent of this change is to provide for: 1) public review of proposed development plans; and 2) greater flexibility relative to compatibility and des i gn requi rements. Thi s change was made in response to concerns about buferring existing residential development which is adjacent to the site. III. CONCLUSION e Development in the River Road and Santa Clara areas has been a metropolitan-wide issue for about forty years. Since acknowledgement of the Metropolitan Plan, substantial progress has been made in setting direction to resolve this issue. The Citizen Advisory Team (CAT), which has actually developed the elements of the UFP, has met for over two years to develop the Sanitary Sewer Element and the draft Land Use Element. Through the work of the CAT, policy direction will be developed which will ultimately provide for greater efficiencies in service delivery and consequently benefit the entire Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan area. 1 . e e e '! ATTACHMENT A REVISIONS AND ERRATA TO THE NOVEMBER* DRAFT OF THE RIVER ROAD-SANTA CLARA URBAN FACILITIES LAND USE ELEMENT The following revisions to the draft land use element are recommended as a result of eublic hearing testimony and subsequent written testimony. Findings 1. Revise existing zoning map to show recent Lane County rezoning of industrially designated property in the Irving Light-Medium Industrial Subarea to M-l. General Policies 1. Page 2-15--Amend Policy 3.0 to reinstate the word "prohibit" for "strongly discourage" emphasizing the importance the Citizen Advisory Team placed on controlling strip commercial development. The Lane County Planning Commission also recommended that Policy 3.0 include the conditions under which existing strip commercial development could expand. Policy 3.0 to read: 3.0 Prohibit the linear expansion of existing strip commercial areas fronting on Ri',!er Road. Existing strip commercial development may expand by infilling, redevelopment or expansion onto contiguous property that does not front on River Road. 2. Page 2-16--Amend Suggested Action 7.1 (a) to note the exception to thi s siting criteri a on page 2-31, Recommendati on #7. Suggested Action 7.1 (a) to read: 7.1 (a) Neighborhood commercial developments shall not be located on or adjacent to River Road, except for as provided on page 2-31. 3. Page 2-18--Amend Suggested Action 9.1 to delete qualifications for Farm Tax Deferral. The Lane County Planning Commission felt that enforcement of standards would be infeasible. Suggested Action 9.1 to read: 9.1 Support the Farm Tax Deferral program for existing commercial agricultu ral uses. Subarea Recommendations 1. Page 2-22--Delete recommendation. Further analysis has shown that there are no parcels meeting this criteria. . "-:-~------ . ---.-.-- e e e ATTACHMENT A (cont'd) 2. Page 2-27--Amend Recommendation #2 to read II south of Santa Cl ara Ave. II instead of Green Lane. Thi s change allows some additi ona 1 infill of strip commercial north of Santa Clara Ave. while reinforcing the professional office uses as a transition area south of Santa Clara Ave. Recommendation #2 to read: 2. Parcels south of Santa Clara Avenue and west of River Road, that are not already developed for commercial use, should be zoned for office development. ... 3. Page 2-29--Revi se subarea descripti on to refl ect actual zoni ng. Description to read: This subarea is mostly undeveloped. It contains an EWES reservoir in its southeast corner. The Metro Plan designation for the area is light-medium industrial. The majority of land in the area was zoned for future industrial use in 1982. Provision of urban level services will be needed before intensification of development can occur. Principal access to the site is from I rving Road. 4. Page 2-29--Amend Recommendation #1 to delete IlLight-medium". This change will leave open the issue of the appropriate land use designation and zoning for the site. As a result of public testimony, the Citizen Advisory Team and staff also recommend that Planned Unit Development procedures replace site review. The PUD process provides for public review and greater discretionary latitude relative to compatibility and design requirements. Requirement #1 to read: 1. Use Planned Unit Development procedures to mitigate impacts on existing adjacent low-density residential development upon rezoning to industrial. *The draft land use element reflects public input from a joint CAT and Policy Committee public hearing held on October 10, and a joint Lane County and Eugene Planning Commission public hearing on November 27. The CAT, Policy Committee, and Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions have approved the draft and the revisions and errata as noted and recommend adoption. pltherra 1/10/85