Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/1985 Meeting M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council City Council Chamber March 11, 1985 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer (7:30-10:00), Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan. The regular meeting of the City Council of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Obie said the council scheduled the public forum to provide people an opportunity to address the council about issues not scheduled for a public hearing or public discussion on a future City Council agenda. The forum provides an opportunity for the council to learn of the community's needs from its citizens. - A. Illegal Manufacture and Distribution of Methamphetamines Geor~e Leyba, 639 Van Buren, is a member of the Whiteaker Neighborhood Watch. He dlsplayed a placard on which were syringes he has found on the streets and in the alleys of the neighborhood. He also submitted photographs of the placard to the councilors. The syringes are used to inject methamphetamines which promote unacceptable behavior, he said. They sometimes result in paralysis and, even, death. It is a serious problem. Mr. Leyba said many people in the neighborhood have low incomes. They must steal to purchase methamphetamines. He said Lane County is becoming a distribution center for methamphetamines. It is estimated there are 20 manufacturers of methamphetamines in this area. It is a serious problem. He suggested the council verify his statements with the State Police and Rick Sie1 of the detective division of the Eugene Police Department. Mr. Leyba urged the council to declare war on methamphetamines. He will submit his testimony in writing. Mayor Obie said the council appreciates the written testimony. Councilor Erhman said she works in the Public Defender's Office. People in the office have noticed the use of methamphetamines has increased. They do not know why. lone Pierron, 1360 Ferry, spoke about the proposed widening of 6th/7th avenues which will be on the ballot March 26, 1985. She said the notice placed by the ~ City in the Register Guard was not a neutral presentation. A letter had been MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 1 e sent to the City staff from the Citizens for a Liveable Future citing elements of the notice that were misleading. The letter stated that the interests of those opposed to the widening and removal of historic street trees have been harmed by the notice. The letter asked the City to publish a retraction of eleven statements. She said Citizens for a Liveable Future would like the Council to respond to its request by Friday, March 15, 1985. II. RESOLUTION CONCERNING MAYOR'S TREE AND BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION (memo, resolution, background information distributed) Councilor Bascom thanked the other councilors for working with her as she organized the Mayor's Tree and Beautification Commission. She read the proposed resolution. Res. No. 3905--A resolution accepting the Mayor's recommendation for creation of a Tree and Beautification Commission. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Answering a question from Ms. Bascom, Mayor Obie said commission members could be solicited immediately. Ms. Bascom hoped the commission would be appointed soon, so it can be working by April. e III. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Van Buren Railroad Crossing (memo, background information distributed) City Manager Michea1 Gleason introduced the agenda item. Pat Decker of the planning department presented the staff report. She said the Southern Pacific Railroad had requested the Public Utility Commissioner (CPUC) of the State of Oregon to close the at-grade crossing of the Southern Pacific Railroad's main line at Van Buren Street between 1st and 2nd avenues after the Chambers Connector overpass is completed and opened. The public hearing will give the council an opportunity to hear testimony and, if it wishes, to take a position, Ms. Decker said. She distributed a map which indicated the residences of people who had signed petitions asking the council to oppose the closing. The City had received a letter from a representative of the 4-J School District indicating the school board will discuss the railroad crossing closure April 3. A series of draft findings had been distributed to the council. The council could adopt them as distributed, modify them, or postpone a decision, Ms. Decker said. After reviewing City policies and planning documents, the staff suggested that a position opposing the closure would be consistent with City plans and policies. The adopted plans and policies assume through traffic will use the Chambers Connector and the at-grade railroad crossing at Van Buren Street will be maintained for traffic on arterial streets. ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 2 - e ~ Ms. Decker said the Planning Commission had received the same material the council received because the issue is related to land use actions. The council could ask the commission to make a recommendation, if the council desires their input before taking a position. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. Geor~e Scholibo, 1000 Pacific Building, Portland, represented the Southern Paci lC Railroad. He discussed the history of the Chambers Connector and the efforts of the railroad to cooperate with Lane County and Eugene. He said the railroad's needs were not identified in the City. He said the City had built a school within one-and-a-half blocks of the railroad crossing and a fire station almost on top of the crossing many years ago. Mr. Scholibo said lumber markets are a long way from Lane County and trans- portation costs for lumber from here must be competitive with transportation costs from other places. To be competitive, the railroad must operate efficiently and the main switching yard is very near the Van Buren crossing. The crossing creates a serious problem for the railroad and the citizens of Lane County. The railroad is a citizen of Eugene and Lane County. It pays many taxes and has over one thousand employees who are concerned about their jobs. If the railroad cannot keep costs competitive, its payroll will have to be reduced. Some years ago, Lane County told Southern Pacific Railroad it would like to construct the Chambers Connector across the switching yards and intermodal facility which is the fastest growing part of the business. Lane County wanted five acres of railroad property. The railroad decreased the number of tracks it wanted in order to save the County much money. At the time, it seemed the citizens would approve the closure of the at-grade crossing. Mr. Sholibo emphasized that the crossing is hazardous. There probably will be fatalities. He is concerned about the school children who must cross the tracks. Mr. Sholibo said long trains must be "humped" across the yard and the crossing must be blocked. Otherwise the railroad may go out of business. The railroad is not flexible. It cannot get off the tracks but citizens in automobiles are flexible and can use the other three crossings in the area. Consideration should be given to construction of a pedestrian underpass. The railroad will work with the City and County to obtain it. The closure of the crossing will enable the railroad to operate its facilities efficiently, Mr. Sholibo said. He asked the council to consider the matter more before deciding to oppose the crossing. Al Johnson, 915 Oak, represented Nedco and the Whiteaker Community Council. He said major policy decisions to retain the railroad crossing at Van Buren Street had been made in the Whiteaker Refinement Plan, the Metro Plan, and the T-2000 Plan. The Chambers Connector was to solve the traffic problem in the neighborhood by taking through traffic off of Van Buren. Mr. Johnson said the closing of the crossing would isolate the Blair neighbor- hood and divide the community. It would cut off the school and the fire station because the railroad yards cut through the Whiteaker neighborhood. Alternative streets, such as Monroe Street, are residential streets. MINUTES--Eugene City Council Ma rc h 11, 1 985 Page 3 e The railroad could propose an amendment to the Metro Plan which could close the at-grade crossing, Mr. Johnson said. It is important that the City oppose the closing now to maintain the integrity of the Metro Plan. John Tamu1onis, 2508 Agate, represented the Neighborhood Economic Development Council (NEDCO). He urged the council to oppose the closing of the railroad crossing. He said the City's plans indicate the railroad crossing will remain open. NEDCO operates the Red Barn which has five tenants. The City invested $175,000, the Oregon Bank invested $150,000, and the tenants invested $65,000 in the Red Barn to improve the neighborhood business climate and revitalize the neighborhood. To be successful, customers must be drawn from the rest of the city. Traffic is essential. Closure of the crossing will create a barrier in the neighborhood. It will destroy several businesses and jepardize the investments. Both business owners and residents oppose the closure. They have relied on the City's planning documents. e Steve Adey, 1375 Bailey, is president of the Whiteaker Community Council. At three neighbhorhood meetings, residents have opposed the crossing closure because of its impacts on business, access to the community, separation of the school and emergency services from the rest of the community, and the neighborhood's effort to keep traffic off Monroe Street. The Community Council approved the Chambers Connector because it will reduce through traffic on Van Buren Street. The Community Council is distressed to learn the railroad is requesting the closure of the crossing in order to extend the switching yards. Mr. Adey said a request for a railroad crossing guard for school children was included in the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. The Community Council is aware of the safety problem and has requested a guard from the 4-J School District for four hours a day. He suggested the 1st Avenue and Van Buren area be considered for beautification because it is an entrance to the inner city. Mayor Obie pointed out testimony had lasted for more than 15 minutes. Herman Schwartzrock, 4715 Manzanita, is the principal of Whiteaker School. He said someone had told the Public Utility Commissioner that he favored the closing of the crossing. It is not true. He supports the development of a separate pedestrian/bike crossing and the retention of the at-grade crossing. Paul D. Triem, 358 Blair, opposed the closure of the crossing. Mr. Triem and his wife purchased property a year ago for Eleanor's Spinning Wheel. The property was run down. They have improved it. Back taxes have been paid. They chose the location because of the traffic flow and other businesses in the neighborhood. If they had known of the closure, they would not have purchased the property. He said all businesses in the area will be adversely affected by the closure. Lucille Johnson, 394 B1air,Ms. Johnson and her husband purchased the Tiny Tavern in 1938. At that time, Van Buren Street was the main highway to Portland. Her business depends on traffic. She employs many people and pays much in taxes. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 4 e David Tobin, 1055 West 18th, also opposed the closure of the crossing. Mr. Tobin is a letter carrier in the neighborhood. He described the attractiveness of the neighborhood which is a mix of residences and businesses. Some have new landscapping. The closure would result in deadend streets in the neighborhood which would lead to increased crime especially for businesses in the area, he said. They would no longer be seen from a well-traveled street. Residents would move and those who stay would not feel safe. Johan Mathiesen, 398 Jackson, owner of Johan's Bakery, referred to the history of the Whiteaker neighborhood. He said Van Buren Street was the Territorial Highway that was started in 1853. The closure would cut a historic route. History is important. Pete Van Herwaarden, 632 Blair, said Van Buren Street is a major access to the River Road district. Many businesses would be affected by the closure. Don Cook, 3835 Kevington, is a partner in a food store in the neighborhood. Some time ago, the railroad crossing was closed for about an hour. It caused problems on other streets. Mr. Cook suggested the City prohibit the railroad from closing of the crossing during certain hours which would solve the safety problem. e Charles Ro~ers, 93 Van Buren, is a Certified Public Accountant and has an office on an Buren. He discussed the alternative routes and said they are not convenient. The City spent $60,000 last year improving the traffic signals at the Van Buren Street intersection and the traffic flow has improved. Eighty-three percent of his clients are south of the crossing, and, therefore the crossing is important to his business. Mr. Rogers hoped the City and the railroad could work out an agreement. He did not want the railroad to go out of business. He suggested the railroad be permitted to block the crossing for a longer period at certain times after the Chambers Connector is completed. Jim Vos, 272 Van Buren, improved the property he bought in 1976. He now has several rentals. He is concerned about crime. Several batteries have been stolen from cars. A letter dated March 11,1985, from Brian W. Bauske was submitted to the Council. Mr. Bausk~ opposed the closing. Jim Holst, 1582 Hackamore Way, is the Safety Officer for the 4-J School District. He has studied the crossing. Although children have ducked under trains a few times, most children observe safety precautions. The problem is caused by heavy automobile traffic. The gaps in the traffic are not long enough for children to cross the street. The school district provides bus transportation from 2nd Avenue to the school for children. The school board has not taken a position on the closure. All who wished to testify against the closure had done so. Mayor Obie asked Mr. Scholibo if he wished to offer rebuttal testimony. He did not. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11,1985 Page 5 e e e. Referring to Mr. Scho1ibo's statement that the needs of Southern Pacific Railroad have not been considered, Ms. Decker said City staff have met with representatives of the railroad. She read from the draft findings prepared for the council as follows: 6. The Southern Pacific Railroad's main switching yards in Eugene lie to the north and west of the Van Buren crossing, beginning at a point approximately 600 feet to the west. Because of the type of switching equipment used in the SPRR yard, trains are frequently backed up across the Van Buren crosssing, awaiting the division of long trains into shorter sections. Answering a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Scho1ibo said railroad representatives had talked of closing the Van Buren Street crossing for years. He said Lane County does not have an easement for the Chambers Connector yet. Replying to a question from Ms. Wooten, Dave Reinhard of the Public Works Department said data from the PUC staff indicated there have been 12 accidents in which cars have been hit by trains at the Van Buren Street crossing in the last 20 years. There have been four such accidents since 1973. The gates were installed in 1975. There have been no accidents at the Monroe Street crossing since the gates were installed. Answering a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Sercombe and Ms. Wooten said trains may block the crossing for 10 minutes without getting a citation. Mr. Holmer said the draft findings indicated that one of the conditions of PUC Interim Order No. 85-146 was that a formal investigation would be instituted to determine if the public convenience and necessity require continuance of the Van Buren Street crossing when the Chambers Connector is completed. He wondered how long the investigation will take. The effect of the Chambers Connector may not be known until 1990 and its effect on the traffic in the area should be considered by the Public Utility Commissioner when he makes a decision. It may be decided then that the closing is not urgent. Mr. Holmer questioned whether the council should make a recommendation now. Mr. Sercombe said the time might be right for the council to take a position on the crossing now. He noted a request to close the crossing had been submitted to the PUC by the railroad. The results of the investigation instigated by PUC Order No. 85-146 might be delayed. Replying to questions from Ms. Ehrman, Craig Reily of the PUC staff said the Southern Pacific Railroad has received 99 citations for blocking the Van Buren crossing for more than 10 minutes. Complaints may be made by citizens in cars or nearby buildings, by police, or by other officials. The railroad is fined as a result of citations. Answering questions from Mr. Miller and Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Scholibo said the time the railroad needs to block the crossing depends on its business. The railroad is operating at 35 percent capacity now and the crossing needs to be blocked eight or nine times a day. If business increases, the railroad might MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 6 e need to block the crossing as many as 35 times a day or a total of four hours. Trains need to stop and start. They need to change tracks. The 10 minute period for blocking the crossing was established because of complaints. Replying to questions from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Reily said a railroad in La Grande is allowed to block a crossing for up to an hour twice a day. To settle problems, the PUC tries to have affected parties agree to a solution. e Ms. Wooten said she had worked hard to revitalize the Whiteaker neighborhood which is on the brink of a renaissance. The business area is successful. The neighborhood is cohesive and people are proud of the neighborhood. The railroad is a part of the community. She would like to work with the railroad if it is possible, but she did not want to destroy the sense of community that has been established in the neighborhood. She did not want to violate the land use plans or turn away from the public investment in the neighborhood. She suggested the council consider the needs of the railroad, safety concerns, and the way in which elements of the community relate to each other. She suggested the council go on record as opposing the closing, be prepared to defend that position before the PUC, and, at the same time, work with the Southern Pacific Railroad to find a way to provide guards at the crossing and to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schue agreed with Ms. Wooten. Ms. Schue did not want to be an adversary of the railroad. She would like to work with the railroad and hoped it would withdraw its request to the PUC for closure of the crossing. After the Chambers Connector is complete, the City might negotiate a solution similar to the one in La Grande in which the railroad closes a crossing for an extended time. Ms. Wooten pointed out the Southern Pacific Railroad had not withdrawn its request to the PUC. If the railroad does not withdraw its request, she thought the council would have to oppose the closure, but opposition was not her first choice. Mr. Holmer agreed with Ms. Wooten. He suggested the council oppose the closure and take a position in favor of raising the issue again if the investigation indicated the crossing should be closed. Mr. Miller also agreed with Ms. Wooten. He hoped the council IS action would signal the community that a decision had been made and would not be changed. Mr. Obie would like to alleviate the tensions. He would like the railroad to be able to close the crossing for a longer time. He thought a pedestrian underpass would solve some of the problems, because there is a safety problem for school children. He would like the council and the staff to develop a scenario for the next few years. ~ MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 7 e e ~ Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the draft findings presented to the council, to go on record as oppposing the closure of the Van Buren Street railroad crossing, and to instruct the City Attorney to work with the Southern Pacific Railroad and, to represent the City before the Public Utility Commissioner if it is necessary. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:1; Councilors Wooten, Hansen, Schue, Bascom, Erhman, Miller, and Rutan voted aye; Councilor Holmer voted nay. Ms. Wooten asked the staff to keep the council posted about communications with the Southern Pacific Railroad. Mr. Holmer said Southern Pacific Railroad business will probably increase as the Eugene Agenda succeeds. It will behoove the community to understand the needs of the railroad and show some leadership in working with it. Ms. Ehrman cautioned that an underpass just for pedestrians might create a place where crimes could be committed. Mayor Obie recessed the meeting briefly at 9:00 p.m. B. Residential Zoning District and Definition Revisions (CA 84-2) (memo,ordinance, background information distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Gary Chenkin of the planning department presented the staff report. He said the council had considered changes to the zoning ordinance in modules. The council approved the changes in the industrial module and the commercial module previously. The residential module contains a number of changes to the residential zoning districts and updates definitions. New development standards and procedures are specified for certain uses, such as home occupations. Criteria are included for a special small lot of 2250 square feet that will be permitted only in the multiple-family zones (R-2, R-3, and R-4) under certain conditions. Mr. Chenkin said the special small lot provision was developed because some people want to live on a small parcel in a medium or high density district, but they do not want to belong to a home owners' association and have responsibility for common open space. They want a small, low maintenance parcel on a public street with their own parking. The special small lot provision provides this housing choice. Some uses are added to the residential zoning districts and some wording in the code is clarified in the residential module, Mr. Chenkin said. For example, provision is made for visitors to mobile home parks to park and live in recreational vehicles in the park. The provision is a response to repeated requests. Responding to a question from Ms. Wooten about the lot size required for a house with alley access, Mr. Chenkin said it is included in the provisions previously associated with cottage units. The revisions to the residential modules permit alley access units in the RA and R-l zoning districts. In the RA and R-l districts, a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet is needed before MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 8 - e ~ a lot can be divided into two lots and a cottage unit placed on one. The resulting lots will each be at least 4,500 square feet which roughly equals the low-density designation in the Metro General Plan of about 10 units per acre. In the R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts, a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet is needed before a lot can be divided into two lots and an alley access unit placed on one. The resulting lots cannot be less than 3,500 square feet. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Chenkin to call her so they can discuss the minimum 9,000 square foot lot in the RA and R-1 zones. Her constituents had indicated the size is too large. Answering questions from Mr. Hansen about the special small lot provision of 2,250 square feet in the R-2, R-3, and R-4 districts, Mr. Chenkin said a lot of 5,000 square feet could be split in half if other standards, such as maximum coverage, minimum parking, and minimum frontage, could be met. Answering a question from Mr. Obie, Mr. Chenkin said all the major issues raised in letters to the Planning Commission had been resolved except the site review issue raised by the 4-J School District. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. James Holst, 1582 Hackamore Way, is Planning Coordinator for the 4-J School District. He pointed out the recommended changes included a requirement for the site review suffix for property on which new schools will be built. He said the design of school property has not caused a problem. Public need is considered when the schools are designed. The 4-J School District has land use planning policies. Plans for schools are referred to City staff, L-COG, and Lane County and a public hearing is held. The site review procedures would duplicate the procedures and increase the time required for decisions and the cost of the buildings. Boyd Iverson, 1331 Washington, generally approved of the proposed revisions. He asked the council to make one change when approving the residential module and to direct the staff to study two other changes. Speaking for the Eugene/Springfield Multiple Listing Service, Mr. Iverson asked the council to include real estate offices in the conditional uses permitted in the R-4 zone when approving the residential module. He reviewed other conditional uses in the R-4 zone and said real estate offices are similar to them. Mr. Iverson asked the council to direct the staff to consider providing a variance procedure for the 7,200 square foot lot required for alley access units in the multiple-family zones. He said some lots just under 7,200 square feet in developed areas could meet the other standards for division. A variance would permit them to be divided. He also suggested the council direct the staff to consider a way to combine the alley access and special small lot provisions for lots occupied by multi-family structures in multiple-family zones so that a special small lot with alley access can be created. It would provide an additional opportunity for home ownership. There being no additional requests to testify, Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 9 - e e During the staff response, Mr. Chenkin said the Planning Commission was concerned about safe ingress and egress and the capatibility of school buildings. As a result of testimony from the 4-J School District, the commission recommended the site review suffix instead of the more lengthy and costly conditional use permit. The commission wanted to be sure all land use considerations will be addressed when schools are constructed. The Planning Commission had recommended some new standards for non-residential uses in the R-4 zone but specific conditional uses were not changed. He did not think the commission would object to the addition of real estate offices as a conditional use. The staff will consider Mr. Iverson's other suggestions. Replying to questions from Mr. Miller, Mr. Chenkin said a subdivision of 2250 square foot lots could be created, but it probably would not be created very often because the zoning would permit higher density with other configurations. Replying to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Chenkin reviewed the site review procedures which can be completed within 30 days if complete information is submitted. There is no public hearing. An appeal is heard by the Hearings Official. The suffix is usually attached during a zone change. Answering questions from Mr. Hansen and Ms. Wooten about home occupations, Mr. Chenkin said the one business vehicle permitted probably could not be a semi-truck because the house would no longer appear to be a home if the truck were parked in front of it on a regular basis. When a business becomes successful and needs more than two employees, neighbors usually complain about the traffic. The City then tries to encourage the business to relocate in an appropriate zone. Generally, enforcement of the zoning ordinance is based on complaints received. Mr. Sercombe said a law partner could work in a home occupation because a partnership and employee relationship can be structured at the same time. During council discussion, Ms. Bascom said she did not want discord with the 4-J School District. She pointed out the district's citing policies seemed to. have worked well. She did not think it wise to require site review approval when it is opposed by the school district on the grounds that there was no evidence that it is needed. Mr. Miller said School District 52 was also concerned about the added expense caused by site review procedures. He pointed out that land for schools is purchased ahead of time and people know how the land will be used. He asked if there were safeguards in the recommended revisions to prevent the creation of special small lots for rental units which might be detrimental to the nei ghborhood. Replying to Mr. Miller's concerns, Mr. Chenkin said the use of the property is not a question during site review procedures. The location of the buildings, driveways, and open space is addressed. The City could address those concerns in the public hearings of the school district, but the City has more authority in the use of site review procedures. The provision for special small lots of 2,250 square feet will probably be used for infill in developed areas. The usual set-backs will be required. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 10 e Mr. Rutan said the provisions for special small lots permit them under certain conditions, but many of them in one place would not be economically feasible. The administration of the site review procedures has been smooth. He did not think they would create problems for the school districts. Some problems have been created by the construction of large buildings, such as churches, in residential neighborhoods, and the site review requirement could prevent such problems. - Ms. Schue said cooperation with the 4-J School District has not always been easy because it has its own procedures. The site review requirement seems sensible for the protection of the neighbors. The City has expertise in land use planning and the school district has expertise in education. The location of driveways in relation to the use of the street is City-type expertise. She thought it appropriate that the City review those kinds of things. Ms. Ehrman agreed with Ms. Schue and Mr. Rutan. Coordination with the school district when schools are first planned would prevent problems. Mr. Hansen said almost every other major construction project in the city has a site review. He thought the procedures are appropriate for schools. Mr. Miller expressed concern about the vacant properties zoned for high density in Ward 6. He wanted to be sure housing for low income people is balanced by housing for people with moderate and high incomes. Mr. Chenkin said most of the special small lots would be in the developed inner city and perhaps around existing commercial nodes. For example, in the Westside Neighborhood there are large single-family homes on large lots zoned R-2. Some people are concerned the houses will be replaced by four- or six-plexes. The special small lot is an option which might prevent the destruction of the large homes. Ward 6 is mostly zoned RA and R-l. Special small lots are not likely to be created there. CB 2813-An ordinance concerning residential zoning district regulations; amending sections 4.355, 4.375, 4.990, 7.180, 7.197, 9.015, 9.060, 9.095, 9.268, 9.270, 9.308, 9.322, 9.336, 9.364, 9.378, 9.402, 9.439, 9.440, 9.443, 9.496, 9.498, 9.502, 9.510, 9.534, 9.540, 9.542, 9.544, 9.546, 9.550, 9.556, 9.562, 9.567, 9.592, 9.607, 9.808, and 9.810 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing sections 9.254, 9.310, 9.312, 9.324, 9.326, 9.338, 9.340, 9.350, 9.352, 9.354, 9.366, 9.368, 9.380, 9.382, 9.500, 9.504, 9.548, and 9.560 of that code; adding sections 9.384, 9.386, and 9.628; adding real estate offices as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill as amended to include real estate offices as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district 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 March 11, 1985 Page 11 Council Bill 2813 was read the second time by council bill number only. e Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, 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. 19315). IV. INTEREST EARNINGS ON UNSEGREGATED TAXES (memo background material distributed) City Manager Micheal Gleason introduced the agenda item. Warren Wong, Finance Director, presented the staff report. He said Lane County collects property taxes and places them in an account titled "Unsegregated Property Tax Account. II The money is invested and interest is earned prior to distribution to the taxing districts. The interest earnings on the account have historically been put in the County's General Fund. In 1981 the Portland School District sued Multnomah County claiming the interest earnings should be distributed to the taxing districts. The Tax Court ruled in favor of the school district in 1983. . The interest earned on taxes levied by Eugene from 1981 to 1984 is $467,000. In FY 84, the interest earned is about $167,000. Lane County made an offer to the City on January 29, 1985 which indicated it will pay interest earnings from May 23, 1984 to January 8, 1985 of $84,000 to the City and about $6,000 to the Urban Renewal Agency. Subsequent interest earnings would be paid to the City and the Urban Renewal Agency. Part of the offer also provides that County officials should be held harmless against future claims. On March 5, the County Administrator notified the City that the offer of January 29 would be rescinded if it were not accepted by March 12, 1985, Mr. Wong said. The 4-J School District is still negotiating with Lane County about the unsegregated taxes. The staff recommended the council approve the draft letter from City Manager Micheal Gleason to James Johnson, County Administrator, distributed to the council. The letter indicates the City Council and the Urban Renewal Agency neither accepts or rejects the January 29 offer and that any final settlement must have some judicial sanction. Answering questions from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Sercombe said the City will monitor the 4-J School District and Lane County negotiations to see if a jUdicial decision results. A court ruling on those negotiations would be applicable to the City and might be made in three to five months. Mr. Sercombe is not aware of any other case which might be decided first. Mr. Miller wanted to affirm that the City and the school district are cooperating. Mr. Sercombe said the rejection of the January 29 deadline will not convey a negative attitude. Both the school board and the county commissioners are aware of the legal issues. The City wants to be sure whatever it does is prudent and legal. e Lane County Commissioner John Ball said county representatives are negotiating with a representative group of school district administrators and have agreed on the amounts of money. Their is disagreement on a clause the county representatives want to insert that would allow the legislature to deal with MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 12 'cheal Glea on City Manager ~ (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) BLR:je/1673C MINUTES--Eugene City Council e e the issue on a state-wide basis. He urged the council to consider the public policy question of whether the jurisdictions in each county must negotiate a solution or whether the legislature should be permitted to resolve it. Mayor Obie pointed out the City would be paid regardless of a legislative resolution if it accepts the Lane County offer of January 29. Ms. Wooten wanted to demonstrate good faith and recognize the cooperation between Lane County and the City. Replying to a question from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Gleason said the City code is more onerous than those of other cities. The City charter is very explicit about the tort risk. If the City is the first to settle with Lane County, it will have to initiate court action. Ms. Ehrman pointed out a citizen could sue the councilors if the citizen thought the councilors did not get a big enough settlement if the council accepted Lane County's January 29 offer. Answering a question from Mr. Miller, Mr. Gleason said the City would also have to pass an ordinance after court action if it accepted the county offer. The councilors have personal liability. He did not think there was a reason to hurry a settlement. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to adopt the draft letter dated March 8, 1985, from City Manager Micheal Gleason on behalf of the City Council to County Administrator James R. Johnson. The letter indicates the City neither accepts nor rejects the settlement offer of January 29, 1985, regarding interest earnings on unsegregated property taxes. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Holmer had left the meeting. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council and convened a meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency. Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, to direct the Executive Officer of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency to forward the draft letter dated March 8, 1985, from City Manager Micheal Gleason to County Administrator James R. Johnson. The letter indicates the City neither accepts nor rejects the settlement offer of January 29, 1985, regarding interest earnings on unsegregated property taxes. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Holmer had left the meeting. Mayor Obie adjourned the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency at 10:15 p.m. March 11, 1985 Page 13 M E M 0 R A ~ 0 U M - To: Mayor and City Councilors Date: March 6, 1985 Subject: Mayor' s Tree and Beautification Commission At the request of Mayor Obie, we have prepared a resolu- tion for your consideration regarding the Mayor's Tree and Beautification Commission. Adoption of the resolution will signal Council acceptance of the proposal of the Mayor in this regard. Should you have any questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to inquire. HARRANG, SWANSON, LONG & WATKINSON, P.C. CITY ATTORNEYS . e. By . ~f1 ~~ Timothy J S rco be --. TJS:jl Enclosure e ~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE MAYOR'S RECOMMENDATION FOR CREATION OF A TREE AND BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION The City Council of the City of Eugene finds as follows: 1. For many years citizens of Eugene have had an interest in planting and maintaining trees in this community. 2. In August, 1984, Councilor Ruth Bascom proposed the creation of a committee to facilitate the planting and maintenance of trees in the City of Eugene. 3. In January, 1985, Mayor Brian Obie proposed a Eugene Agenda. A component of the Eugene Agenda is the creation of an entrance beautification program and policies for planting - and maintaining Eugenels street trees. 4.- Subsequently, Mayor Obie has proposed the creatio~ of a Tree and Beautification Commission. Now, therefore, based on the above findings, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. The City Council accepts the recommendation of the Mayor for the creation of the Mayor's Tree and Beautification Commission. The foregoing Resolution adopted this day of March, 1985. - City Recorder '. e, e e M E M 0 RAN DUM March 6, 1985 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning and Public Works Departments SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING, VAN BUREN RAILROAD CROSSING This public hearing is scheduled to obtain public input on a city position regarding Southern Pacific Railroad's request for closure of Van Buren Street at its intersection with the Southern Pacific Railroad. This request has been filed with the Public Utility Commissioner and was initiated in November, 1984. At that time, Southern Pacific agreed to the construction of the Chambers Connector overpass over their lines and switching yards, asking at the same time that the Van Buren Street grade crossing be closed: "coincident with the opening of the Chambers overpass... and that.a proceeding be instituted to effect such a closure." More recently, the Public Utility Commissioner has adopted an order granting interim authority to Chambers Connector overcrossing stucture Lane County to proceed with the construction of the overpass structures and the Roosevelt Connector over the railroad lines with the following conditions: 1. "Physical construction of the structures be substantially in progress within three years from the effective date of this order"; and 2. "A formal investigation is hereby instituted upon the Commissioner's own motion to determine if the public convenience and necessity require continuance of the Van Buren Street grade crossing No. C-648. 2 upon completion of the Chambers Connector project." This order was effective February 25, 1985. The PUC staff have initiated a closure investigation that will eventually lead to a full hearing before the Public Utility Commissioner. In response, businesses and residents in the Blair/Van Buren area, the Neighborhood Economic Development Council (NEDCO), and the Whiteaker Community Council have met with city staff and PUC representatives. During the last several months, positions of area businesses and community organizations have been established as follows: 1. Petitions have been circulated among patrons of businesses in the area and submitted to the city, with more than 1200 signatures indicating opposition to the potential closure; y' .e 2. NEDCO and the Whiteaker Community Council have obtained legal counsel to represent them as interested parties in the PUC process in opposition to closure of the at-grade crossing at Van Buren Street; and 3. The River Road/Santa Clara Citizens Advisory Team adopted a position at their February 26th meeting supporting the retention of the at-grade crossing: a) because of potential problems if there were an emergency closure of the Chambers Connector; and b) because initial computer runs for the T-2000 Plan update indicate that the Chambers Connector will become overloaded and an alternative route will be needed to and from the River Road/Santa Clara area. (Letter is attached under separate cover). Existing policy documents provide clear direction for the construction of the Chambers Connector to improve north-south traffic movements and connections between the River Road area and other parts of the Eugene area. These policy documents also provide direction for reduction of through traffic movements within neighborhoods to the extent possible, In all such documents, the construction of the Chambers Connector has been identified as a needed part of the regional transportation system, while Van Buren Street continues to be identified as a significant corridor within the arterial system. . Each of our p'olicy documents recognizes the' strong. relationship between transportation systems and adjacent land use patterns. The following transportation/land use relationships have particular bearing on the Van Buren Street closure issue (see Draft Findings under separate cover for additional detail): 1. Major public resources serving the entire community, including the neighborhood elementary school, community center, fire station and the city's extensive riverfront park system are located north of the railroad, while much of the residential development they serve is located south of the tracks. 2. The area's major commercial services are located south of the railroad tracks along the Blair/Van Buren corridor, while major residential areas are located north of the tracks. 3. Alternative routes for vehicles traveling between areas north and south of the tracks would result in increased traffic on neighborhood residential streets like Monroe Street and 3rd, 4th and 5th Avenues rather than on the commercially- and industrially-developed Blair/Van Buren corridor. . 2 '. - e e Council Action The Mayor and Council have several alternatives at this point. Following closure of the public hearing, council members may wish to adopt the Draft Findings as part of a motion opposing the closure of the Van Buren Railroad crossing. This motion would also direct staff to tak~ this position through any future legal proceedings including subsequent hearings before the Public Utility Commissioner and other state bodies. Alternatively, councilors may desire additional time for information or for recommendations from other bodies, such as the Planning Commission. In that event, council action could be postponed until Wednesday to allow time for staff response to information requests, or postponed to a Council meeting in April to allow time for referral to the Planning Commission. plpdvb2 3 . M E M 0 RAN 0 U M March 11, 1985 TO: FROM: SUBJ: Mayor and City Council Planning Department e RESIDENTIAL MODULE UPDATE On February 15, 1985, we sent you a memorandum describing the various changes to the residential districts and definitions in Chapter 9 (Zoning and Land Division) and related sections of the Eugene Code unanimously recommended for your consideration by the Planning Commission. We also attached all written correspondence received on this item. You are schedul ed to conduct a pub 1 i c heari ng on these proposed update revisions on March 11, 1985. Provided for you under separate cover is (1) the ordinance in which these changes are expressed in legislative form, (2) the minutes from the six Planning Commission meetings at which they were discussed, and (3) for your convenience, another copy of the February 15th memorandum. Finally, please note the Commission also discussed amending the zoning regulations to allow mobile homes on individual lots where conventional homes are now permitted. The Commission separated this item from the rest of its recommendation. It will be forwarded to you for your consideration at a later date. . Provided under separate cover: e Proposed ordinance Planning Commission minutes, six meetings Memorandum (2/15/85) p 1 gcres3 22785 e . M E M 0 RAN DUM ~ March 8, 1985 From: City Council ~ufene Renewal Agency ~ren G. Wong, Finance Director To: Subject: Interest Earnings on Unsegregated Property Taxes This memo updates the one dated February 4, 1985 on this subject. The County has asked the City to agree to a settlement by March 12th, or it will withdraw its settlement offer of January 29, 1985. That offer provided for payment of interest earnings from May 23, 1984 to January 8, 1985 as a cash settlement, payment of subsequent interest earnings and release of County officials for liability on payment, damages or penalties arising from transacting the settlement of this issue. For the City, the cash settlement is $84,049.75 and for the Renewal Agency, it is $6,424.32. e On March 6th, the Board of School District 4-J rejected a similar settlement offer and reaffirmed its earlier compromise offer which, subject to court approval, required the County to pay the entire FY84 and subsequent year's interest earnings over several years. If the County does not accept the Board's offer by April I, the 4-J Board directed its attorney to take the claim to court. We anticipate most of the other school districts will follow suit. Based on ad~iice from the City Attorney's Office, we recommend Council and the Board authorize the City Manager to send the attached letter to the County advising it that the City and the Renewal Agency neither accepts or rejects the settlement offer of January 29, 1985. It further states that because of the potential risk of personal liability for the public officials involved, any compromise settlement reached must have judicial approval. When it appears that the City should more actively assert its claim, we will provide Council and Board with an executive session briefing on the issue. Attached is a copy of County Administrator Johnson's March 5th letter and the offer dated January 29th, my memo of February 4th outlining the issue and a draft letter we propose be sent to the County. cc: M. Gleason D. Whitlow T. Sercombe Attachments -- 5 fnwgw562 e