Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/1980 Meeting e It e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council May 12, 1980 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, with the fOllowing councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Council Jack Delay was absent. I. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. BUdfet Meeting--Mayor Keller stated there would be a 7:30 a.m. meeting on uesday, May 13, which the councilors would be attending. Because of this, it is his hope to adjourn by 10:00 p.m. this evening. B. Trespass Ordinance Amendment--Manager informed the council that he had received a memo with attachments from Mayor Keller and also a copy of Ordinance No. 18617. Under the terms of the City Charter, it is his obligation to bring this to the attention of the council at the first available council meeting. The memo and attachment indicated the Mayor's veto of the trespass ordinance amendment which the council passed on May 5. In order for the council to override this veto, a motion would need to be made and it would require six affirmative votes (two-thirds majority of the council). Mayor Keller stated he had not attended the May 5 City Council meeting, but has listened to the tapes of the meeting and read the findings, as well as documents presented by the public. In his opinion, the process used was not the best procedure to ensure the public goodwill. Mayor Keller read the following prepared statement: "First, I would like to say that I strongly support the First Amendment, 'Right of Free Speech,' and exchange of free ideas. Private individuals should have their rights protected. Private property should have its rights protected, too. It has been the mutual respect and support of each group through 200 years of our American society that has brought us to the 20th century. "However, each segment has its own rights and is protected by laws. It has been a balance of expression and freedom that has served us well. 5/12/80--1 liMy concern for this amendment is found in several areas. The taxpayers ... of Eugene has been talking to me this past week. They indicate that ~ the overwhelming majority does not support this amendment. They have indicated to me by phone, letters, and in person that they want less government control, not more government control, and intervention into their daily lives. We have seen a steady erosion of personal and private rights of people by government. liMy strong support of Free Speech on public facilities is not the issue here. This ordinance, if approved, is actually attempting to upstage what the State of Oregon and the US Supreme Court have ruled on earlier. In these cases referred to the Supreme Court, the issue of Free Speech in private malls has been ruled unconstitutional and I assume that would be the legal case ruling on this ordinance. Our City Attorney was quoted last Monday, lIt will be challenged.' I think the Register-Guard said it very well in their editorial--'This is an ingenious bit of blackmail. It winks at the Supreme Court decisions by not requiring shopping centers to allow political activity on the premises, but threatens them with deprivation of legal protection from trespass if they refuse to allow such activity.1 lilt will cost the City thousands of dollars to defend this position. I see this as an empty political statement and/or exercise. The State law will stand and it will prevail. This amendment does not preserve First Amendment rights. It will do nothing for anyone. "In days when we are combatting an erosion of Home Rule decisions, I 4It find it unbelievable that some members of this council are willing to give away their own local control by moving the prosecution to district courts. We have control--we set the priorities. We set the restraint levels. Why should we give that away? I am sure that because of our policies, we have operated with more restraint than we could expect with control in district court. liThe cost factor is important and should be kept in perspective. Small costs of prosecution and maintaining control are incidental when compared to the costs of a long legal battle. It has been mentioned that this case could cost the taxpayers of Eugene up to $100,000. That threat is not of ultimate concern to me because we have looked that in the face many times, i.e., field burning and protecting the elderly with our condominium conversion proposal. There is a big difference here, however--we had something to win--we had a chance to accomplish some goal. We win absolutely nothing here. In my opinion, the cost of legal battles as mentioned by our attorney is not really what Eugene taxpayers are saying today. They would prefer to spend the money for Sunday Library openings, swimming pools remaining open all year long, or community school support. e 5/12/80--2 - "The courts have ruled that there is a protected difference between public and private malls--recognizing that people today want alter- natives in many areas--some prefer to shop and not be annoyed--I feel it inappropriate for this council to change that ruling. "In summary, then: BECAUSE this amendment infringes on private property rights and I believe the citizens of this community are tired of more government; "BECAUSE the State and Supreme Court have already ruled this type of action as unconst~tutional; "BECAUSE we already have the machinery in place in our home rule laws to provide our citizens the protection they need; and "BECAUSE of the cost to the taxpayers of the city to defend this issue in higher courts; III EXERCISE MY RIGHT TO VETO COUNCIL BILL 18617." Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that Council Bill 18617 be approved. e Ms. Miller stated she felt it was unfortunate that the veto message, rather than being directed at the policies behind the law and whether the law was good or bad, was directed at the idea that it was illegal, and the council was trying to do something the Supreme Court had said the council could not do. She feels that is not a fair statement of the law, and the Supreme Court has not ruled on this matter. She felt all that was being said was that the City would not use City resources to prosecute and jail people in certain circumstances. Mr. Lieuallen agreed with Ms. Miller. He felt that Mayor Keller had shifted the issue. Instead, the Mayor talked about community schodls, swimming pools, and the Library, which clouded the issue. Ms. Smith stated she is not certain that she heard the message right. She has been led to believe that the City would be in for a fight in court by those opposing the ordinance which would involve using City resources. The council is looking at a lot of other needs for the City right now rather than the defense of an ordinance which is flawed and could be declared unconstitutional. She is not willing to allocate this type of money for this issue. She supports freedom of speech but is concerned about the rights of individuals and freedom of choice. People should have the opportunity to choose the type of e 5/12/80--3 shopping setting they prefer. They can go downtown or to other places where such activity is allowed. Government seems to be taking more and 4It more control of onels life. There are roles that the government should play, but individual rights are very important. She urged the City Council to defeat the motion. Ms. Schue stated she has found this to be a difficult issue to discuss with the public and to have them understand.. The ordi- nance says the City will not do something it has been doing in the past. It is being said that this will mean more government yet at the same time saying the City will. not do something it has been doing in the past. She said that she has trouble making that connection. She also wondered whether this would be the beginning step to something worse, as the items that were mentioned as being something worse were all things the City could not do under its Home Rule Charter anyway. There is a massive misunderstanding about this ordinance. Choices to the shopper are not quite as simple as were stated, i.e., to go downtown or to Valley River, since some items are only available in one or the other location. She does not like to be put into the position of making choices about what she buys on the basis of whether or not free speech will be allowed. The ordinance states that if Valley River wants certain kinds of protection, the City, wants it to do one simple thing. She will continue to su~port free speech. Mr. Obie stated he feels it is distressing that the Mayor has to veto legislation. Councilors should work together and come up ~ with legislation that can be supported by all of them. He stated ~ that those who were desirous of putting the Mayor on the spot and embarrassing him prior to the election have instead helped secure his re-election as Mayor. Roll call vote; motion was defeated 4-3, with Councilors Obie, Smith, and Hamel voting "noli and 'Councilors Haws, Lieuallen, Miller, and Schue voting "yes.1I C. Agenda Chan~e--Item I. D. will be changed to Item I. A. by con- sensus of t e council. This is the request by garbage haulers for rate increases. Mr. Henry stated the Garbage Board has reviewed a request from garbage haulers regarding rate increases. The memo distributed shows substantial increases in costs since the last raise. The rate increase being requested is 16.9 percent. This would raise the cost of basic service (once a week, one can) from $3.85/month to e 5/12/80--4 e $4.50/month. If the County levies a dumping charge, the haulers are requesting that they be allowed to pass this charge on to the cus- tomers. Mr. Henry indicated this could be subject to administrative review which could be done by the Garbage Board or by staff. He introduced Shirley Swenson, Finance Department, to report on staff review and answer questions. . - Ms. Swenson noted that the ordinance outlines the increases that the garbage haulers are requesting. Last year, the garbage haulers worked with the Assistant Finance Director and the Garbage Board to develop a uniform format to explain their costs and arrived at the formula used for requesting this increase in rates. Last year, 54 percent of the haulers' income was used in operating expenses; this year, 90 percent of the income will be used for operating expenses. The Garbage Board recommends this increase. The Garbage Board also recommends that the County dumping charge, if implemented by the County, be passed on by the garbage haulers to their customers. Ms. Miller noted that the increases in labor costs are dramatic and wanted to know if any of this could have been caused by incor- poration of smaller companies or shifting of owner receipt profits into the category of company employees. She wanted to know if these figures include how much the owners actually received in their various capacities. Ms. Swenson replied that information from all the garbage haulers was compiled and then submitted to Coopers and Lybrand. She is not aware of significant changes in ownership. Ms. Miller asked how many licensed haulers there are. Ms. Swenson responded that there are 14. Ms. Miller asked why amortization costs would rise so dra- matically. Ms. Swenson stated that question could be better answered by the haulers themselves. . Mr. Lieuallen asked for clarification as to whether the percentage increase includes the County fee. Ms. Swenson responded that it does not include the County fee. Public hearing was opened. There being no request to speak against the increase, all 20 minutes were allotted to those speaking in favor. Service, stated he as tree trucks that Eugene. He noted that high to replace old, worn-out equipment. He stated that in Salem, where the basic rate is now $3.50/month, the haulers are asking for an 18-percent increase in rates. e 5/12/80--5 Deland Mord, 25994 Hall Road, Junction City, Danebo Disposal, stated that truck costs, labor, commercial contractor costs, and fuel are 4It their most expensive items. He thinks that Albany, with a rate of $9.00/month, and Medford have much higher rates than Eugene. Ron Schaeffer, PO Box 2071, Arrow Disposal, stated that amortiza- tion of trucks should have dropped in the last year because they are using old equipment that is getting older. He has three trucks, all older than ten years. Kim Thiele did not testify, and stated that his comments had been expressed already. Michael Madden, PO Box 189, Emerald Disposal, stated he has one 1969 truck and a replacement for it would cost $54,000. Costs for diesel have increased dramatically in the last two years and haulers desperately need this increase. Joel Crouch, 25239 Perkins Road, Veneta, Sanipac, stated he was representing Teamsters Local 57. These haulers have not had a wage increase since February 1979, and they need one. Bob Fenstermacher, 2267 Olive, Sanipac, stated that the rate increases being requested are due to cost increases. Last year, staying within the President's guidelines of seven-percent increases, they received a 6.9-percent rate increase and had to deal with inflation that was 13 percent at that time and is now 18 percent. Their largest ~ increase has been in diesel fuel which has gone up 78.9 percent in ~ 1979 and 12 percent already in 1980. Gas was up 55 percent last year and is up 18 percent already this year. There was a 13.8-percent labor increase in 1979 for their company. Their equipment, the drop boxes, the containers, the tires, and the cost of money to buy new trucks has gone up tremendously. Front-end loaders cost over $90,000. They have 40 trucks and replaced four of them last year. In regard to the dump fee, he stated they are only trying to pass along to the customer exactly the fee that they will be charged by the County; this should not be viewed as profit making to the haulers. Merlin Hill, PO Box 1228, Garbagio's, stated that their industry has faced more increases than many others have. If gas increases at the present rate, it will soon be up over 70 percent. Their firm has no compacter truck and they service 758 customers. In order to buy a new truck, since they are a small firm and would not be able to get prime lending rates, they would be looking at paying 25-percent interest rates. They did have a 6.9-percent increase last year, but inflation went up to 13-14 percent. He urged the council to approve the rate increase. - 5/12/80--6 e Kenneth Hunter, 1409 Ranchwood, Ken's Sanitary Service, stated that the rate increase may seem like a lot, but it isn't if inflation is considered. He stated that he has "too much month left at the end of his money." Gerard Galvin, 2100 Riverloop, No.1, stated that he works for Garbagiols Recycling Service, but is testifying as a private citi- zen. He stated he feels that the rate increase is probably necessary but questions the timing. He felt that perhaps waiting until after the County election in two weeks, when there is a possibility of a dump fee added on, would be better and the increase could be done all at one time rather than two increases in a very short time. He stated that he feels recycling incentives should be incorporated into the rate structure. If a rate break were given to households that recycle, recycling could be promoted. It is hoped that the County would institute recycling incentives for commercial haulers. e There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henry stated that, in regard to the question of dump fees, the haulers had developed a formula should it need to be enacted. Section 9 of the Ordinance states that the haulers can collect from their customers for disposal site fees. He asked if it was the council IS wish to have a review of this by the Garbage Board. Ms. Smith asked if a review is added how would it affect the present ordinance. Mr. Henry stated that an amendment could be added stating that there would be review and approval by the Garbage Board of any disposal charge. CB 2118--An ordinance concerning rates for garbage services amending Section 3.250 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Res. No. 3140; and declaring an emergency. Consensus was to include the phrase at the end of Section 9 of the resolution: "Upon review and approval by the Garbage Board." Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unan- imous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at th i s time. Mr. Haws stated he would be voting against the motion. He does not feel the City should be in the business of regulating rates. He is opposed to rate regulation, feeling that it is unfair to consumers and haulers. He urged other members of the council to oppose the motion. e 5/12/80--7 Ms. Miller asked if the council would be interested in having the ~ Garbage Board work together with the Resource Recovery Center to ... discuss recycling incentives for haulers. Mr. Lieuallen stated agreement with Mr. Galvin regarding the timing of this matter. The County has been to the voters for a serial levy and bond issue that already failed. The City's responsibility is to keep consumer costs down and reduce the amount of solid waste. If the percentage increase is passed, and the disposal fee is passed on, Council needs to work with haulers to see what can be done in the area of recycling. He will support the motion, but hopes this can be coordinated with Lane County. Mr. Obie stated agreement with Mr. Lieuallen and Ms. Miller, and stated the Council could direct the Garbage Board to work with Lane County. He stated that he would like the Garbage Board to provide the council with information on the impact of non-regula- tion of rates. He feels that haulers made a very sound argument for the rate increase. Ms. Miller agreed to have the Garbage Board look at that and report back. She is not satisfied with the financial information that was provided. Ms. Smith agreed with Mr. Haws and asked if the Garbage Board has addressed this issue. Ms. Smith stated that getting out of rate regulation has been supported by more than one council member in the past. Mr. Henry stated the Garbage Board addressed this concern a couple ~ of years ago and took a strong position against de-regulation, .., fearing that would lead to destructive competition, putting some of the haulers out of business. Ms. Smith felt it should be looked at again. Mr. Haws stated that he doesn't feel there is such a thing as "destructive competition." Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2118 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. Motion carried 6-1 with Councilor Haws voting "no.1I The bill was declared passed and numbered 18629. Recess was called. e 5/12/80--8 ~ II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning 1. Property located south and west of Warren Street from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, and Timber-Raising District and RA Suburban District to City R-l/PD Low-Density Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures (Goldington Associates) (AZ 79-9) (Map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission, February 18, 1980 Vote 4:1 on annexation; 5:0 on zoning. e Mr. Henry stated this annexation is for 73.7 acres to be annexed to the City and the Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Mr. Henry noted the concern regarding this property is whether adequate fire and sewer service can be made available to this property. Mr. Henry introduced Greg Byrne and Jim Farah, Planning, to provide background information. Mr. Farah stated that councilors had received additional findings pertinent to all the annexations and rezonings. These are intended to respond to the court's decision regarding the Cone/Breeden case. Additional findings will be made available to the councilors regarding compliance to Statewide Goals. He noted Mr. Barkman, Planning Commission, is available to answer questions regarding the Commission's decision. Mr. Byrne stated he would be responding to concerns from the councilors and neighborhood organizations raised on March 24 regarding public service availability. In regard to sanitary sewers, the site was inspected by the City Engineer, who requested that certain portions of this property be deleted. This was done by the applicant and the property remaining can be served by sanitary sewers and storm sewers. In regard to water service, Eugene Water & Electric Board has indica- ted that service to the property could be provided. They would need one-half to one acre for a reservoir and will be purchasing this land within the year. Construction of the reservoir would depend upon residential construction. A temporary booster pump could be installed to serve a limited number of residences in the lower elevations. In regard to fire services, a satellite fire station is required before acceptable response times to the sites can be obtained. The City owns property for the station, but lacks funds for construction. e 5/12/80--9 e Funds will be available for site preparation. The station would not be built until 1981-82 at the earliest. For electricity, the property would be served by two jurisdictions, Lane Electric Coop and EWEB. In regard to schools, District 4-J has concerns over school ' capacity. Access to the lower elevations is possible through Warren Street, but access to the southern portion would require road extension. Staff's original recommendation was to post- pone this, but the Planning Commission took the hearings official authority into consideration and feels this should go under the City's jurisdiction rather than the Countyls. Mr. Lieuallen asked how the County would feel about developing this area. Mr. Byrne responded that limited development could take place under County jurisdiction. He thinks it is highly unlikely that this would occur. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. David Williams, 975 Oak Street, No. 600, indicated this matter was postponed due to the Cone/Breeden decision. He feels the legal issues have been addressed; this is now a planning issue. The annexation makes sense. The Planning Department will still need to consider soil types, the slopes, the scenic issue, etc. The property has been planned for urbanizing for some time. It presents no problems with the LCDC goals. There is a need to annex vacant land to the City. He noted that he had sent a letter for the council to Greg Byrne. This property can be con- sidered a resource for planned development as actual development would be at least two to five years away since it is a planned unit development. This will meet housing needs in the future. The City should supervise the planning for this area, and annex- ation will be ensuring that this happens along City policies. e Ms. Smith asked Mr. Barkman if there is additional information from the agencies that would be providing services. Mr. Barkman responded that these concerns had been addressed. They were primarily concerned about fire protection service, but thought that this could be taken care of during the PUD process. They recognized this area as one suitable for urban development. e 5/12/80--10 - Ms. Miller asked if there were anything that needs to be done to make certain that the hearings official addresses these concerns. Mr. Byrne responded that the hearings official will review the background information. Res. No. 3330--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located south and west of Warren Street to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings supporting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 18, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Mr. Lieuallen asked about School District 4-J's position, since the 1990 Plan states that school districts need to be more involved in the planning process. He wanted to know when they might begin getting with the school district. Mr. Byrne stated that the school board would be setting priorities by the end of June. They are in a period of study and are making policy decisions. He hoped that the school district would report back in a joint Planning Commission/Council meeting. e Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2101--Authorizing rezoning from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, and Timber-Raising District and RA Suburban District to City R-l/PD Low-Density Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures for property located south and west of Warren Street. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 18, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2101 was read the second time by council bill number only. e 5/12/80--11 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and num- bered 18623. - 2. Property located between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road west of Four Oaks Grange Road from County RA Suburban Residen- tial District to City RA Suburban Residential District (Conner/ Lee) (AZ 79-12) (Map distributed) Recommended approval by the Planning Commission, February 5, 1980. Vote 5:0 on annexation; 4:1 on zoning. Mr. Henry stated this would be an annexation to the City and to Lane County Metro Service District. Bill Sloat, Planning, will be giving background information. Mr. Sloat stated this property consists of 11 acres with seven parcels. Property is located in an area where the City Council and Planning Commission have been supporting annexation. This annexation would also include portions of Bailey Hill and Bertelsen roads. This is an established service area with existing road patterns. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Douglas Lee, 1284 Piper Lane, stated this seems like a logical extension of city boundaries and also a logical annexation of services. e There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3331--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road, west of Four Oaks Grange Road to the City of Eugene and Lane County Metro- politan Wastewater Service District. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 5, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. , . 5/12/80--12 e Mr. Lieuallen noted that he is bothered by the opposition of the school district. He stated that not enough adequate information has been received from them. He asked why the roads are being annexed. Mr. Sloat responded that the roads would be included for ease in extending basic services. Mr. Obie noted that this annexation would create an island of un annexed property. Mr. Henry stated that there would be two islands. Mayor Keller asked why the City is not hooking up the triangle on the south side of the map. Mr. Sloat responded that that piece of property is County right-of-way with no private ownership involved. Mayor Keller asked where the information regarding School District 4-J stats was being obtained. Mr. Sloat responded that they are the same statistics that were used previously. Mr. Keller asked if the school district is still projecting declining enrollment. Mr. Farah responded that the previous projections have been high. He noted that all annexations currently are on the periphery of the city and tradi- tionally there are capacity problems for schools in peripheral areas. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e CB 2102--Authorizing rezoning from County RA Suburban Residential District to City RA Suburban Residential District for property located between Bertelsen Road and Bailey Hill Road, west of Four Oaks Grange Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 5, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Ms. Miller stated that it is not uncommon for peripheral schools to have problems with capacity; but just because the schools are having problems is not a valid reason for the City to not annex property. She suggested working more closely with the school district. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2102 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion car- ried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18624. e 5/12/80--13 3. Property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive ~ from County RR Rural Residential District to City R-1/PD Single- ,., Family Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures (Rexius Investments) (AZ 79-13) (Map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission, February 5, 1980. Vote: 3:1 on annexation; 4:0 on zoning. Mr. Henry stated that Jerry Jacobson would be making the staff presen- tation. Mr. Jacobson stated that this site is 16 with moderate to severe slopes. This is with the exception of a few residences. by a stump street from Brookside Drive. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. acres in the South Hills, a largely undeveloped area Right-of-way is provided Speaking in favor: Peter Thompson, 2000 Cal Young Road, representing Rexius Investments, stated that traffic patterns are a problem on Brookside Drive but they plan to provide a street to the north. They are taking the slopes, vegetation, and schools into account in this pun. Doug White, 391 Brae Burn Drive, stated his concern about traffic ~ due to the steepness of the hill. On February 5, 1980, the Planning Commission staff notes with comments from Public Works confirmed the steepness of this hill and the danger. Inclement weather causes traffic to be impossible. He in concerned about the schools and noted that Edgewood School has stated they could not accommodate more students unless the development occurred over a period of time. Mayor Keller stated he had received a letter from Kathleen Siler who has lived at 4235 Brae Burn for 11 out of 12 years of her life. She is concerned about safety on Brookside Drive, especially with con- struction vehicles and increased traffic. Robert Gates, 1090 Brookside Drive, stated that most of the residents are concerned about traffic problems. If all traffic funnels onto Brookside, it would be a very serious problem. He stated other people would have attended the meeting if they had had notification, but even he was unaware of this meeting beginning at 7:30 until 7 p.m. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. e 5/12/80--14 - Mr. Jacobson stated that traffic problems will be addressed. Schools are below capacity now and PUD development will ensure that the development will happen over a period of time. Mr. Lieuallen asked what it meant that the traffic problems would be noted. Mr. Jacobson responded that from the data they have it would be very precarious to provide access north to 40th due to slippage problems, but they do not have complete data yet regarding future access to the north. Mr. Lieuallen asked if it is a situation of Brookside Drive being bad, while other options are worse. Mr. Jacobson responded that that was correct. Ms. Schue agreed that access to 40th would be desirable and asked if there has been an agreement to this effect with the developer. Mr. Jacobson responded that staff is investigating this. Mr. Thompson stated he had been in touch with two property owners to the north and one of them is an engi~eer who thinks access would be possible. Res. No. 3332--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 5, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2103--Authorizing rezoning from County RR Rural Residential District to City R-1/PD Single-Family Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures for property located west of Brae Burn Drive, north of Brookside Drive. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of February 5, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. e 5/12/80--15 Mr. lieuallen stated that it seemed to him that a lot of hope is being placed in potential access and no one seems to have much faith that this can actually happen. Ms. Miller noted that, since this has PUD pro~edures, there will be other chances to approve or disapprove before development occurs. e Ms. Schue noted that the hill is very steep and she is concerned about traffic, but there are controls and the City hopes traffic will be routed to 40th. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2103 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion car- ried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18625. B. Rezoning 1. Property located on the east side of Coburg Road between Bailey lane and Tandy Turn from R-2/10 PD Limited Multiple-Family Resi- dential District with a maximum density of ten units per acre and Planned Unit Development procedures to R-2/20 SR limited Multiple- ~ Family Residential District with a maximum density of 20 units ~ per acre and Site Review procedures (Bennett/Shaw) (Z 80-3) (Map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission, April 1, 1980. Vote: 5:0. Mr. Henry stated that Bill French would be giving the background information. Mr. French stated that this is 1.81 acres east of Coburg Road. He recommends approval based upon the findings. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jim Kirsten, Bennett Management Company, concurs with Planning staff findings. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. e 5/12/80--16 e CB 2119--Authorizing rezoning from R-2/10 PO Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with a maximum density of ten units per acre and Planned Unit Development procedures to R-2/20 SR Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with a maximum density of 20 units per acre and Site Review procedures for property located on the east side of Coburg Road between Bailey Lane and Tandy Turn. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 1, 1980,.be adopted by reference thereto; 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; motion carried unanimously. Council bill 2119 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion car- ried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18626. e 2. Property located on the southeast corner of West 12th Avenue and Grant Street from R-1 Low-Density Residential District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District (Nelson) (Z 80-7) (Map distributed) Recommended approval by Planning Commission, April 1, 1980. Vote: 6:0. Mr. Henry introduced Bill Sloat to give background information. Mr. Sloat stated that this is an 8,000-square-foot lot with two existing units on the southeast corner of 12th and Grant streets. Originally, RG zoning designation was requested by the applicant which would provide up to seven units, but Planning Commission approved R-2 which would allow two more units. Applicant concurred. Mr. Lieuallen asked if there are plans to remove the two existing structures or to add additional structures. Mr. Sloat responded that plans are to add one additional unit. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Testifying in favor: - 5/12/80--17 Mr. Nelson, owner of the property, stated he hopes the recommendation is passed since it will have no impact on the neighborhood. There ~ are currently two units with about 15-20 feet separating them. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2120--Authorizing rezoning from R-1 Low-Density Residential District to R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential District for property located on the southeast corner of West 12th Avenue and Grant Street. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 1, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2120 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion car- ried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18627. 3. Property located north of 18th Avenue between Acorn Park and Oak Patch Road from RA Suburban Residential District to R-2/PD Limited Unit Development e 980. Mr. Henry stated that Bill Sloat would be giving the background infor- mation. Mr. Sloat stated this parcel is 1.53 acres north of 18th, between Acorn Park and Oak Patch Road. He stated that one reason for PUD designation is that access primarily would be restricted to Acorn Park Drive. Numerous other R-2/PD zone changes have occurred in this area. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2121--Authorizing rezoning from RA Suburban Residential District to R-2/PD Limited Multiple-Family Residential District with Planned Unit Development procedures for property located north of 18th Avenue between Acorn Park and Oak Patch Road. e 5/12/80--18 e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of April 1, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2121 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion car- ried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18628. C. Abatement Under Housing Code--938 Jefferson Street (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated the memo detailed many of the fire hazards which threatened not only this property but other property as well. This item has been taken to court and the owner was ordered to clean and repair the property by March 1, 1980. The process is for the council to pass a resolution declaring this a nuisance. This has been held over at the request of the property owner for one month. Mr. Haws noted he would abstain. Mr. Haws left the meeting. - Paul Osborn, HCC, presented a slide show detailing the appearance of the property from June 7, 1978, to March 1980. The hazards continue to exist after all the notification to the property owner. He noted a resolution had been distributed to the councilors regarding this property indicating that this is a dangerous building and a nuisance does exist. Some of the more major hazards were many stacks of books in boxes, numerous cans of paint and other flammable materials, blocked entry ways, wood stacked in close proximity to the buildings, abandoned vehicles, and a myriad of extension cords (some of which were close to faucets that either leak or have been leaking). Public hearing was opened. Jon Stafford, 1060 Madison, stated that the property is a hazard and the City has done more than go the extra mile in working with this owner. He presented a letter from Jerry Wilson, another neighbor, who stated that fire hazards were very frightening and that he also supported this resolution. Gordon Elliott, 938 Jefferson, owner of the property in question, stated he feels this situation is grossly unfair and that no one has attempted to find out what his problems are. His desire is to be liked and well-remembered. He has not tried to be rebellious and has tried to do his part. He would like more time or to have e 5/12/80--19 a delay in the decision. He has incurred expenses directly related to the abatement procedure. He stated he hopes the council will investi- 4It gate what is done by the City Police in the name of the housing code. He has heard of abuse, lack of discretion, and harassment by the police and in the past he had always believed that that was not true. He said because of his personal experience he now has reason to examine this problem. He also felt that the housing inspectors were inept and callous in allowing such actions to occur in the name of the housing code. Prior to this incident, he had considered police and fire "people" to be his friends and has paid considerable property tax relating to the services they provide. If the police could or would protect us properly, he would not be in this present dilemma. He felt that he was publicly humiliated by being arrested. He was not read his rights nor was any 10 shown to him. The collecting of books is his main satisfaction in life and that is why he has so many of them. He stated that he had acquired some recycled legal books which were stacked on his porch. About 9:15, he was awakened by noises downstairs and that is when the police arrested him. He would like his property restored as this is the only place that he has. Public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3359--Authorizing abatement of property locted at 938 Jefferson Street. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the res- olution. e Mr. Lieuallen stated that this property is located directly south of Kaufman Center. For the most part, this is a well-kept part of town not like what was shown on the slides which were shown to the council. Ms. Miller stated this is a case of public good over the right of private citizens. She noticed there seems to be health and safety problems involved. She also stated that in the last three weeks the yard has been cleaned up some from what it was before. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Councilor Haws absent. III. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (Distributed) Res. No. 3360--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period April 28, 1980 through May 12, 1980. - 5/12/80--20 - e -e . . Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to May 14, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ~ J~A/~r Charles T. Henry City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:LN:pm/CM8bl 5/12/80--21