Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1980 Meeting ~ ., e e e "----- '- M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL June 9, 1980 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., June 9, 1980, in the City Council Chamber by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor Eric Haws was absent. I. AWARD CEREMONY FOR CUB SCOUT DEN 2, PACK 26 Mayor Keller stated there are about 30 different commissions and boards whose members volunteer their time to the City as do those on the City Council. Tonight, he noted it is a special pleasure to welcome a new generation and he feels it is appropriate that the City recognize these people. On April 21, this group of Cub Scouts took it upon themselves to construct a pathway through a neighborhood park. It was a fine effort and they will receive merit badges for this project. He introduced the volunteers individually. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Appeal of Zone Request Denial by Planning Commission for Property Located North of 15th Avenue on the West Side of Villard Street From R-1 Low Density Residential District to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review Procedures (University of Oregon/Rena Cowan) (Z 80-8) (map distributed)--Mr. Henry stated this is an appeal of a portion of a zone request denial by the Planning Commission. He introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning, to provide background information. Mr. Jacobson stated that on April 21, 1980, the zone change request was denied for five tax lots from R-1 to RG/SR and for two tax lots from R-1 to C-2/SR. Only the zone change request for the two tax lots is being appealed. The Planning Commission found no evidence of need for the C-2/SR request. These two tax lots (6600 and 6700) are on the west side of Villard from 15th to Franklin and contain a total of 20,272 square feet. Both lots are developed with single-family residences. The property south is zoned R-1 and consists of single- family residences. The property west is zoned R-1 and developed with single-family residences or University uses. The property east is zoned C-2/SR and is owned by McDonald's Restaurant. South of the restaurant zoning is R-2 and R-1, and immediately north of the 6/9/80--1 restaurant is property zoned C-2/SR with single-family residences. Further to the north is the Franklin Boulevard commercial strip. Several recent rezoning requests have been considered by the City involving property on Villard north of 15th. In 1976, the Planning 4IJ Commission recommended a zone change at 15th and Franklin to RP. The applicant submitted additional materials, including a map which indicated the vacant property north of Franklin in the Garden Avenue area. Out of 18 acres, 4.5 acres are developed for residential purposes. Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission, stated that there are several references to condemnation in the material that has been presented. The minutes of the April 21 Planning Commission meeting, when a public hearing was held, refer to a question of Mr. David Rowe regarding condemnation. The Planning Commission had pursued this issue only because the applicant or the applicant's representative had brought the issue up earlier although this earlier discussion had not been noted in the minutes. There was no consideration of condemnation in the commission's deliberation. Public hearing was opened. Ms. Smith noted she would abstain because of a possible conflict of interest. Speaking in favor of the rezoning: Dr. Rena Cowan, 1055 Linda Lane, Springfield, stated she is the owner of the Eugene Animal Hospital, which has been on Franklin Boulevard 4It for 30 years. She has been there for seven years. When she bought the practice, she did not buy the property, but has a lease and can buy at any time she desires. Franklin Boulevard is an expensive location since it is more commercial than it was 30 years ago. It is hard for smaller businesses to compete in that area and the traffic flow is awkward. She is concerned because Franklin Boulevard has heavy traffic and animals have gotten loose from their owners and dashed into the street. The building is not suitable for her needs since it is too large, expenses are high, andsfn'ce there is not enough parking she is unable to rent out a portion of it. Problems with the building are forcing her to leave her location. There are some possible solutions: 1) she could buy the hospital, sell it and buy other property in the area, although at this point there is none available. She has surveyed the Garden Avenue property to see if it is for sale but it is not. Tax Lots 6600 and 6700 (where Mockney's Barbeque was located) are available for $15 per square foot, which is considerably higher than most property of this kind and it is long and narrow which seems like jt could be a problem; 2) she could trade with the University of Oregon which she is pursuing; or 3) she can leave the neighborhood. -e 6/9/80--2 ~ e She operates a low-cost spay/neuter clinic and serves a large elderly and student clientele. Fairmount Neighbors voted 21:11 to support her request for rezoning and building her hospital over there. There is a puolic need. Speaking against the rezoning: Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Drive, stated the request for C-2 zoning seems more in terms of the University's needs for additional space and they have not submitted any testimony on their own behalf. At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Rowe testified that the University is in desperate need of additional space but does not know what it\would use this property for. To be considered with the applica- tion is a written statement that offers good arguments for holding on to all the residential property that the University holds. She does not think the situation has changed that much from when it was heard by the Planning Commission and she does not feel this would be a good investment of public funds. Sometimes temporary situations become permanent. The University has not demonstrated a need at this partic- ular time for this particular property. There is no evidence of a public need for this trade. She urged the council to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. e Marna Broekhoff, 1844 Kona Street, is Co-President of the Fairmount Neighbors. The council should have received testimony from the public hearing on April 21. She feels that no isolated zone changes east of the University should be maqe until a refinement plan is adopted. This request should be denied, particularly since it is a residential- to-commercial zoning. Mr. Jacobson stated the request is for a change of zone to C-2 not whether there should be an animal hospital there. He stated the Planning Commission vote was 5:1, not 5:0. In rebuttal, Tom Moreland, 44 Club Road, stated the Planning Commis- sion action surprised him although this request is for only a portion of the original request. This request does comply with the compre- hensive plan and vacant land does not necessarily mean available land. This would be an opportunity for the University to consolidate its land since it would remove one island in that area. The southern boundary of this request is still north of McDonald's across the street. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Mr. Obie asked the staff to clarify what land was available in that vicinity. Mr. Jacobson responded that approximately two of the 18 acres of land in the Garden Avenue area are vacant. Mr. Obie asked about vacant land south of Franklin Boulevard. Mr. Jacobson responded that there is none. - 6/9/80--3 Ms. Miller stated this is a difficult issue since the animal hospital does provide a needed service. The University holds much of the land in that area and much of the residential use of the land is for ~ student rentals. She stated there is a definite need for refinement ~ planning in the East University neighborhood. She realizes that vacant property is not necessarily available property. There is a need to work with the businesses, the University and the neighborhood to determine where residential and commercial areas should be. She hoped the animal hospital can remain until a refinement pl an can be done. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to deny the appeal and adopt the Planning Commission's findings. Mr. Delay agreed with Ms. Miller. In a zoning request there must be a demonstrated public need. The private need factor could be bolstered with the University's needs and the swap which would constitute a public need. All of this does not necessarily make a strong need. He feels this should remain status quo until a refinement plan is finished. Mr. Obie agreed the refinement plan is needed but thinks a decision should be made now about this particular request. He thinks the Planning Commission decision may not best serve the city in this instance. When the Planning Commission varies from the General Plan, they should make their case. It should not be up to the applicant. He thinks generally that the hospital would be better on the south side rather than the north side and will oppose the motion. He also feels that medical and dental services should be available in that area. e Mr. Delay stated he agreed with the need factor but this is a quasi- judicial procedure rather than a legislative format. Zoning would be for the property rather than for the business that would be located on it. Roll call vote; motion carried 5:1, with Mr. Obie voting no and Ms. Smith abstaining. B. Council-Initiated Improvement Project Resolution (memo/map distributed) Mr. Henry stated thlS concerns the proposed pavlng of Martin street between Center Way and West Amazon Drive. This is a council-initiated improvement and was before the council in 1973. There are very strong reasons for proceeding with this improvement. He introduced Dave Reinhard, Public Works, to give background information. Mr. Reinhard indicated that the staff memo attached to the agenda summarizes the reasons for the proposal. At the time the council first considered this project they decided not to proceed primarily because of the large assessment that would be levied each property . 6/9/80--4 e owner, and the undeveloped nature of the property. Since then, the frontage along Martin Street has been almost totally developed with single-family houses and duplexes. In addition, the City has selected this street as one of its high-priority top ten "dusty roads" projects, aimed at reducing the particulate component of Eugene's air pollution problem. Lane Transit District views Martin Street as a link in its southeast Eugene system. They have requested paving of this street and the council has acknowledged bus routes as an important consider- ation in initiating paving projects. Mr. Reinhard said the council received a letter from Mr. Leong who was concerned that the existing environment in the area would be harmed by paving that street. Mr. Reinhard said he had been contacted by Mr. Leong and one other resident earlier in the day and residents on the south side of Martin Street had met last night and are now favoring the project and appreciate the changes that staff has made. They do have concerns with drainage as they built their houses with roof drains and the road design is higher than the roof drains. Mr. Reinhard said the City will help them solve their drainage problems. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: George Montoya, Lane Transit District Planner, stated that LTD supports the paving project since it will require less maintenance of their vehicles. e Albert Leong, 870 Martin Street, stated he was in qualified support of the project and dlstrlbuted two handouts: a diagram and an overlay. He commended the Public Works staff. He urged consideration of the drainage problems in the neighborhood prior to paving or widening. He also commended the Public Works Department for preserving trees and the environment in the area, and noted that the neighbors support the proposed plans for developing a system of bike and jogging trails. Speaking against: Ronald Sticka, 828 Martin Street, indicated qualified opposition and stated they have a unique problem of water on Martin Street. He commended Bert Teitzel, Dave Reinhard, and Jim Hanks for their open- ness in dealing with the residents in this area. He stated dust is often raised by excessive bus speed. He feels the street will be paved so they would like to see a plan involving storm sewers for peak drainage seasons. He wondered what could be done for drainage. They are at the head waters of Amazon Creek and there is a flood approxi- mately everyone out of six years. They would like continuation of their subterranean drainage system. They are concerned about flooding and feel an additional study of the drainage problem would be good to determine the necessity of a new drainage system. They recommend postponing a decision or bid submission until this study is completed. e 6/9/80--5 " There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Reinhard asked Mr. Sticka to go into more detail about the drain- age channel. Mr. Sticka responded that during the past 20 years there 4It have been floods three times. He indicated the drainage channel is south of the road. Mr. Reinhard stated the present proposal is to pipe the water which flows from southeast to northwest which should handle the problem. They will double check, come out and meet with the neighbors. Mr. Sticka said they would appreciate that. Mr. Hamel asked if the street would be 28 feet wide with sidewalks only on one side. Mr. Reinhard responded that there would be parking on only one side, but there would be sidewalks on both sides except for where the park land is. In response to Councilor Hamel's question regarding the width being sufficient for bicycles and cars, Mr. Reinhard stated that Martin Street would remain a local street and there would be no significant problem. The long-range bike planning system would include coming south to Amazon Channel and then up to Martin Street to West Amazon Drive. Mr. Obie asked what could be done with the design to take care of the flooding problem. Mr. Reinhard stated they could make sure the design would handle floods. He thinks there is also a solution for their roof drain concern. Mr. Obie asked if they have designed to the five-year flood level. Mr. Reinhard responded affirmatively. Mr. Obie asked why the City's portion of this paving project was so large. Mr. Reinhard responded that it was due to the cost of the extra storm drain system and extensive park land. This assessment would be billed to the Parks and Recreation Department. Ms. Schue ~ hoped for continued cooperation so the problem could be resolved. ' Res. No. 3384--A resolution authorizing street paving and sidewalk construc- tion on Martin Street from West Amazon to Center Way Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. C. Condominium Conversion Ordinance--Mr. Henry stated this is a long and compllcated ordinance that has been before the council twice and is scheduled for a public hearing. The moratorium is in effect until June 23. There is pressure to bring it to a successful conclusion. He introduced the following staff for background information: Tim Sercombe, Jim Croteau, Jim Farah, Robin Johnson, Betty Niven--who prepared the table of contents, formula calculations, and index--and Councilor Delay, chairperson of the task force. Mr. Sercombe stated that on November 26, 1979, Ordinance No. 18535 was established to provide a moratorium on condominium conversion. A task force was initiated to handle the following charges: criteria for e 6/9/80--6 e conversion; reduction of the impact of conversion; purchaser protec- tion; building inspection; a reasonable balance between rental and owned housing; to encourage the construction of multi-family housing; and to maintain housing for special category tenants. The Condominium Task Force met from December 1979 through May 1980. The ordinance protects existing tenants, special category tenants, and purchasers of converted units through mandatory disclosure of the condition of the building. Protection for existing tenants includes disclosure of conversion intent by the developer, the affected tenant has a right to stay in his/her housing unit for six months after notice of planned conversion, no conversion or tenant displacement will occur if demand for rental housing seriously exceeds the supply under the formula, and special category tenants will not be evicted unless two independent offers of comparable housing units are given to each such tenant which would be offered through a housing counselor paid for by the developer. Moving expenses would also be paid by the developer. Purchasers are protected in the following ways: the unit must be in compliance with the housing code at the time of sale; the developer is required to warrant or guarantee that the common elements of the building and its components will operate for two years which will be backed by bond or cash escrow account; the developer must fund the initial replacement reserve account of the unit owners association; the purchaser must be informed of the condition of the building prior to sale through a certified report of a licensed engineer or archi- tect; and no developer will be allowed to negotiate for the sale of condominium units or cooperative shares for respective tenants until issuance of a preliminary permit to convert is issued by the City of Eugene. No developer is allowed to transfer ownership of any condo- minium unit or cooperative share until he/she has obtained a final permit for condominium conversion by the City of Eugene. The ordinance requires two permits--a preliminary permit and a final permit. In order to obtain a preliminary permit a developer must: 1) have the building to be converted inspected for code compliance; 2) obtain a certified report from a qualified, licensed engineer describing the condition and expected useful life of the components of all the common elements of the building; 3) notify all tenants of their rights under the ordinance and provide them with information on the condominium conversion process; 4) provide information to the City on the condition of the building, the rental history of the building for the previous three years, and information on the tenants' partic- ular needs; and 5) provide moving expenses, a housing counselor, and comparable housing units offers to special category tenants. To obtain a final conversion permit, the developer must: 1) execute a warranty guaranteeing the good condition of each component of the common elements in a building for a period of two years; 2) set up a cash reserve escrow account with benefits of the unit owners associ- ation; 3) repair all housing code violations; and 4) pay the conversion fee. . e 6/9/80--7 There are several pertinent definitions, one of which is common elements which means existing for the benefit or common use of more than two units or share owners, and comparable housin~ which . involves seven factors used in determining whether a unit lS compar- able (such as size, gross rent, and number of bedrooms with others ~equiring the exercise of judgment requiring similar heating and cooling systems, kitchen and bath facilities, special facilities for special category tenants, and accessibility to community services. The last four factors must be similar but do not require exact equiv- alency). Conversion is defined as a situation where two or more rental housing units sharing a common element are converted to separate ownership interests. Cooperative housing units would be living units having separate kitchen facilities. Late in the deli- berations of the task force, it was decided to include cooperatives so this form of housing could not be used as a means for bypassing the condominium conversion process. The Director of HCC can waive partic- ular requirements for cooperatives in particular situations. A waiver can only occur if there is an adopted administrative rule identifying a particular regulatory requirement as equivalent. The tenants cannot waive their rights but they can be negotiated. He added that there is a $500 conversion fee per unit. Mr. Delay stated it has been a pleasure to work with the task force and the public in these open discussions. The council has expressed its concern that they not stand in the way of new multi-unit construc- tion, so he proposes to exempt from most regulations of the condominium ordinance units that are less than ten years old and were constructed after 1975. This would be primarily those who have conversion as part of the financing package. He requested staff to come back with a ~ proposal on this matter. : Mr. Obie stated concurrence with Mr. Delay. He feels that elimina- tion of most requirements except for the special category aspect is an excellent one. He questioned using both a ten-year figure and construction after 1975. Mr. Delay indicated the ten-year stipulation would apply to future construction. Mr. Obie asked if this would encourage people to convert prior to the building becoming ten years old. Mr. Delay stated that it would; if the financing package includes conversion in the first ten years then this would not stand in the way of that financing proposal. Mr. Obie wondered if they would be better off to eliminate the ten-year stipulation and indicate that those units built in or after 1975 are only subject to the special category requirements. Then they would not be encouraging conversions within the first ten years. Mr. Delay stated this could eliminate the impact of the conversion formula. Ms. Smith stated she supports Mr. Delay's suggestion for staff to bring back additional language. Mr. Lieuallen asked how the conversion formula would be affected under this formula. . 6/9/80--8 e Mr. Oelay stated that these units would be included in computing the formula but would be excluded from the number of allowable units that could be converted. This would, then, not stand in the way of new multi-unit construction. In response to Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Delay clarified his proposal by saying it would apply to those built after 1975 but less than ten years old. Ms. Schue said she agrees with the general idea but wondered how it would affect cooperative housing. Generally, cooperative housing is for low-income people and is promoted by the City. These units would be taxed at $500 each and one would be taxing low-income people to raise funds for low-income housing. Ms. Miller stated that Mr. Delay's proposal seems like a sensible suggestion. The ten-year figure is to try to coincide with balloon payment financing. There would be less need to inspect structures that were less than ten years old. Mr. Obie stated he feels this would be encouraging people to convert within the first ten years and he would not like to encourage that. Mr. Lieuallen was concerned that people could rent and not know that the building would be converted before it was ten years old. Mr. Oelay noted these people would be covered under displacement regula- tions. Mr. Lieuallen asked.if there could be a way to ensure that notification would be given to the tenant prior to conversion; he feels these people should be informed that they might face conversion. Mr. Hamel asked how these protections apply to the people who live in the new apartment buildings for low-income people on 8th and 11th avenues since there is a tax-deferred status for 10- years. e Jim Croteau, Planning, stated the apartments at 11th and Olive would remain rentals in perpetuity. Robin Johnson stated that regarding the Lawrence Street apartments, . part of the agreement with the City was that they must remain in low-lncome rental status for 30 years. The agreement with Olive Plaza was that they must pay back the subsidy if they convert. Recess was called. Mayor Keller stated that, due to lack of time this evening, there are two alternatives: 1) to shorten discussion on the condominium item to 20 minutes for each side; and 2) to limit discussion on the proposed euthanasia ordinance or to delay it, which he would hate to do since there are people present from out of town. Council consensus was to shorten the length of time to 20 minutes for each side for the condo- minium item. Written testimony will be accepted through noon on Friday, June 13. The condominium issue will be placed on the June 18 agenda for a decision. e 6/9/80--9 Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor: Mark lindberg, 1750 Olive Street, Board of Directors of the Neighbor- ~ hood Housing Resource Center, expressed appreciation for the staff ,., work and shares the council concerns. He finds it regrettable that cooperatives were included because it will penalize low-income, non-profit cooperatives. He urged the councilors to approve the condominium ordinance but to remove the language dealing with cooper- atives. Including cooperatives at this time would be premature and more information is needed before dealing with them. He suggested the task force should continue its review of cooperatives. Rick Goldstein, 1610 Jefferson, stated he is from the Jefferson Area Neighborhood Executive Committee and supports the position stated by Mr. Lindberg. He feels that a $500-per-unit charge will inhibit low-income residents from forming low-income, non-profit cooperatives. Laurence Hawkins, 1080 Patterson, stated he lives at Patterson Towers and agrees with Mr. Lindberg that cooperatives should be eliminated from the ordinance. John Vanlandingham, 2207 Harris, lane County Legal Aid, stated he had testified in November. He has concerns about "moving trauma" of the special-category tenants, and fear that conversion may cause a reduction in rental housing stock in Eugene. He noted the task force met 15 times and every meeting was open to the public. He urged inclusion of a life tenancy section for special-category tenants but supports the present ordinance. He is concerned about Mr. Delay's ... proposal and feels it could be a loophole. He would request the task . force to come back with more information. Anne Mahler, 1080 Patterson, stated she would not testify because her concerns had been addressed. Charles Strong, 495 West 26th Avenue, is a member of the Eugene Aging Commission and its task force on condominium conversion. He noted his . statement would refer to the ordinance only as it affects the elderly, handicapped, and low-income persons (called special-category tenants), who .are the people that originally apprised the City of the impending conversion problem. The task force and staff have worked long and hard to produce the proposed ordinance, and it is a good improvement over previous drafts, but it is still flawed in the area of comparable housing as: 1) no consideration is given to the tenant whose physical and/or mental condition makes a move to new housing traumatic or possibly fatal; 2) no consideration is given to amenities which may be more important than physical features, such as pets, noise, dust, garden, etc.; 3) new housing costing 50-percent more per square 6/9/80--10 e e foot is considered comparable in the ordinance; and 4) the word "comparable" does not mean equal or equivalent or similar. The word is so inappropriate as to be possible grounds for chaflenging the intent of the ordinance. He added he is supporting passage of the ordinance. e Wickes Seal, 712 East 16th Avenue, member of the Aging Commission, stated that since the Delay proposal will not affect special-category tenants, they would favor it. She hopes the ordinance will be passed promptly but if changes are made she hopes they will give more pro- tection to aging, handicapped, and low-income people. She knows staff and the task force have worked hard, listened carefully, and have been responsive. She appreciates the fact that they invited everyone to work with them. She is still concerned about the housing facilitator and would prefer that the City select and pay this individual rather than the developer. Perhaps the City could maintain a list of facili- tators that the developers could select from. Hank Murrow, 1215 Arthur Street, Neighborhood Housing Resource Center, feels that language regarding cooperatives would affect their corpora- tion. The Neighborhood Block Corporation is a mini-economic development corporation in the Far West Neighborhood which has taken advantage of the City's PUD process for a low-income cooperative. He would like language dealing with cooperatives stricken at this time. Eve Horn stated she would submit written testimony. Olivia N. Clark, 327 West 5th Avenue, said she supported the ordinance but is not in favor of it as it relates to cooperatives. She does not feel as much time was:spent with the cooperative issue as was spent with condominiums and this would penalize groups that have been working with the City's HCC Department. She feels capital may not be available for low-income non-profit cooperatives to pay the $500-per- unit tax and would like to make certain that the door is not closed to these groups. She suggested striking the language referring to cooperatives from the ordinance. Clark Cox, 1085 Patterson, Apt. 9, stated that he favors deletion of the $500 fee. He favors the ordinance in principle but is concerned about cooperatives being included. He has a mental and physical disability according to Social Security standards but would probably not be considered a special-category tenant by the standards within this ordinance. Social Security has stated that he is not employable, yet he would not be able to be involved in cooperatives should they be included in this ordinance. On page 17, paragraph 1, there is mention of leased units and he would also be excluded from recourse because he has a month-to-month rental agreement as do many other people. He feels the loopholes should be blocked. e 6/9/80--11 Speaking against the ordinance: John Bennett, Director of Planning and Governmental Affairs, Home Builders Association of Lane County, stated the purpose of his testi- ~ mony is to ask for a two-week delay to allow for adequate review by the housing industry of an ordinance that will have a long-term effect on the variety of housing types in the city of Eugene. He feels less than one week is not enough time for a responsible public review of what has developed into a very complex ordinance with legal, social, and planning implications. The additional time would allow the industry to determine if and how the proposal can be modified to better serve the full spectrum of existing and future renters and purchasers of converted units since they are the ones that must meet the requirements of the ordinance. They also do not feel that the ordinance will, in the long run, help maintain an adequate supply of rental units due to the low return on investment and other difficulties encountered in the market for providing rentals. The only practical means now through the 1980's for building units for rent may be leaving open the option for future conversion to units for sale. Conversion of existing rental units is providing the means so that first-time home buyers can enter the owner-occupied housing market. Conversion of existing units, partic- ularly at the low rate at which it is taking place in Eugene, helped satisfy many of the stated goals of the City of Eugene and the State's LCDC Goal 10 (Housing), which strive to provide a variety of housing opportunities and, as now written, the ordinance would appear to have a negative impact on the ability to meet these stated goals. They also feel that the tax would place a burden on future purchasers of the units that. is not required of any other segment of the popula- tion seeking housing. The purchasers of converted rental units will, in effect, be subsidizing public housing programs in the city of Eugene in a way not imposed on other owner-occupied units, with their mobile home, single-family, or the recent allowed duplex ownerships. Costs incurred in complying with this ordinance will be passed onto the future purchasers who are unfortunately not identifiable as a group now and are, therefore, unaware of what this proposal will cost them at a future date. They feel the existing proposal far exceeds the needs of the city of Eugene and request more time to mold this proposal into a workable document. He added that the Delay proposal suggested this evening sounds good. - Richard Oehler, 520 Kingswood, stated he is an apartment complex owner and believes this law is completely unnecessary and counterproductive to developing more housing in Eugene. He is an investor and his living is not made from the housing industry but, rather, these funds go toward his retirement planning and estate building. The natural process of rental property is to be built, depreciated, then sold or e 6/9/80--12 e upgraded before selling and one form of upgrading available is condo- minium conversion. If that option is lost in Eugene, construction of a sizable development will slow or stop. It would be foolish for him to invest in Eugene when he can go to another "forward thinking" community where those options are available. There has been less housing started in Eugene in the last three years and increased costs and decreased rents are the factors. Conversion is a national phenomenon. He feels the council cannot legislate how and where investors will invest their money as invest- ments are determined by the potential profit in the free enterprise system. New, large rental developments will not be built in this community by private funds with this type of law and, therefore, Eugene will have lost new housing. In condominium conversion, no housing will be lost and, in fact, the building of more units for later conversion will be encouraged. He feels this law implies that owners are a repugnant breed who throw handicapped or elderly citizens into the street. He knows many busi- ness people who put up with persons who take advantage of legislation favoring special categories. He believes the intent is good regarding the special category tenant but the implementation of this process will not be recognized. "0ne only has to look at Social Security, Welfare, unemployment, and other social programs to see what is now recognized as a special category and realize these groups now include many who were never intended to be included when the laws were originated." e He stated that nowhere in this ordinance is any mention of property owners' rights or protecti9n of those rights. H~ stated that on page 19, Section B, the developer must give a notice. He stated that it has taken 49 pages to set forth this law and additional administrative rules are yet to be written. He requests that the owners be given this information in plain and simple language as is required of the developers so that they might pass it on to the tenant. Before the moratorium took effect, he had sent a registered letter to the City, the County, and the State requesting that he be sent the necessary information to convert his property to condominiums. His only reply from the City was "see your lawyer." He said it is his understanding that City staff, after researching the ordinance, recommended that it was unnecessary and will probably have a detrimental impact on Eugene's housing. He also understands that HUD is opposed to this type of law because it discourages private investment and real estate development in the community. He understands that outside consultants have testified that this law was unnecessary. He asked who recommended the ordinance, wondering if it was undue concern over the two high-rise conversions from which, when challenged in court, the City backed down because of the potential expensive litigation. He asked whether they feel there will not be challenges to this law. He stated that he thinks the ultimate challenge may come in a few years by a potential e 6/9/80--13 condominium owner who cannot find one in his price range because the new ones are too expensive and none are being converted to allow a lower price choice. He stated he truly believes this law will increase the cost of housing to all of the citizens--renters and owners alike-- ~ and that it is bad business. ~ Boyd Iverson, 2399 West 22nd Avenue, stated that his concerns had been covered by previous speakers, but the decision to give more time is needed in order to think through the ordinance. Wilma Downie, 1630 Patterson, Chairperson of the West University Neighbors, stated the proposed ordinance does not address the need of providing and maintaining low-income housing in the form of coopera- tives. Cooperatives should be deleted from this proposed ordinance. She supports the Neighborhood Housing Resource Center position. Robert Linz, 1321 Pai~e Avenue, member of the Joint Housing Committee, was partially responslble for the letter containing the objections of the Joint Housing Committee regarding the proposed ordinance. Their basic concern was that the ordinance might retard the development of new housing. The Joint Housing Committee feels that the ultimate payment of the $SOO-per-unit tax will be by the buyer of the unit. Most expenses incurred are ultimately passed on to consumers, in the form of the price. The people they hope to help will be the ones to whom the tax will be passed along. The Joint Housing Committee is charged with helping the City decide what kind of housing can be available to various members of the community and to see that every- thing that the City does through the City Council actions adds to the enhancement of the availability of housing. Apartment dwellers or ~ others who would like to buy a converted apartment unit will probably ,., be buying the lowest priced housing unit available in the city of Eugene, and to tax those individuals $500 to buy that unit seems to be counterproductive, according to the Joint Housing Committee. To take the money from the individual and give it to the Joint Housing Committee to build low-income housing seems to be a direct contradiction of purpose. He is opposed to the tax as an individual and as a represen- tative of the Joint Housing Committee. James McCoy, 341 Van Buren, stated he works with the Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation in the Whiteaker Neighborhood and opposes low-income cooperatives being included in this ordinance. There has not been enough time spent to understand how cooperatives would be affected. He would like more time to research this to see what effect there will be and urged cooperatives being excluded. Their particular cooperative would have to request exemptions from the tax. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mayor Keller stated that noon, June 13, would be the deadline for acceptance of written testimony. 6/9/80--14 - e e e Mr. Lieuallen stated he would like a staff response on Councilor Delay's proposal and on cooperatives. Mr. Obie stated agreement with this and said he would like additional information on the tax issue. Ms. Miller stated she would like to see work done on the preparation of language for Delay's proposal and asked if Section 11 on page 45 (permit waivers) would pose a significant problem. Ms. Smith stated she felt the task force should get together one more time to clarify points raised at this meeting. Mr. Delay stated he would like an opportunity to have this brought back at the June 11 council meeting. Consensus was to further discuss at the June 11 council meeting: 1) the Delay proposal; 2) the question of coopera- tive inclusion; and 3) the taxation issue, in order to provide staff direction in these areas. Mayor Keller responded that it could be the first item. D. Proposed Euthanasia Ordinance--Mr. Henry stated this is the ordinance requested by Councilor Delay which conforms with the initiative petition passed earlier. It is not the same as the County ordinance nor the ordinance under study and development by Tri-Agency. He introduced Stan Long~ City Attorney's office, to provide background informat ion. Mr. Long stated that in May 1978 the County initiative measure regu- lating the killing of dogs and cats in shelters was passed. He noted that councilors received a copy of this as well as a copy of the Lane County Code and a copy of the ordinance requested by the council. The County measures do not automatically apply within the city of Eugene since it is a home rule city. This ordinance would limit the killing of dogs and cats in pounds and shelters within Eugene to injections of pentobarbital by 1 icensedveteri nari ans and animal techn ici ans. Veterinarians in private practice would be limited to using injection methods but it does not specify the drug that would be used. This does not limit what owners can do with dogs and cats, nor what can be done in defense of property or person. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in_favor: Jeffrey Sherman~ 3315 West 13th, stated he was one of the original sponsors of the 1978 ballot measure. The limits would be injection of sodium pentobarbital by licensed and trained personnel. Opposition to this measure came from Tri-Agency, Lane Humane Society, and the Lane County Veterinarian Society. This measure was to limit use of the decompression chamber. After the initiative measure was passed by the voters the Lane County Commissioners changed po~tions of the ordinance in September 1978, since Greenhill Animal Shelter and the Tri-Agency Board objected to the wording regarding "certified" personnel. 6/9/80--15 -, They indicated practical difficulties in implementing this portion. He feels a serious error was made in not imposing this original ordinance on Greenhill. He stated that Dr. Labovich had stated that animal technicians receive extensive training, and availability is not a problem since there are 35 accredited schools in the United States which have animal technician programs. Tri-Agency would require two trained technicians. The salary ranges for these positions is lower than that presently for kennel personnel. He asked that the councilors adopt the origina1 measure. He noted that the Greenpeace organization supports this. Diane Suko, 870 Snell, stated she was shocked to find out that the ordinance passed two years ago has never been enforced. This ordi- nance was to assure use of animal technicians. On May 12, at a meeting of the policy committee, they were told by the management team it was impossible to do this. She stated that in California, the State Legislature has required licensed animal technicians. She feels that right now is the best time to resolve this issue since there are two open positions. . Speaking against the ordinance: Mark Pangborn, 5050 Fox Hollow, Chairman of the Tri-Agency Management Team, supports injection euthanasia. His concerns are with the restriction as to who can perform the procedure. The policy board had instructed the management team to develop an ordinance that would apply to all three jurisdictions. He stated there are only 62 animal technicians in the state of Oregon. He talked with the Director of Training at Portland State University which is an Oregon institution ~ that licenses animal technicians who felt there would not be enough ~ licensed technicians to handle the need and that these individuals probably would not be interested in holding jobs that only dealt in disposal of animals. Mr. Pangborn noted that their budget does not include the cost of a veterinarian to administer or observe injection euthanasia on a daily basis. He feels this is restrictive language. He feels the two major criteria for successful injection euthanasia are: 1) sensitivity to the animal and knowledge of animal behavior; and 2) manual dexterity. He does not feel the language regarding veterinarians and/or licensed animal technicians is necessary. . Betsy Williams, 5065 Whiteaker, Director of Tri-Agency, stated she is opposed to the language restricting the injection euthanasia only to veterinarians or licensed animal technicians as this would be cost- prohibitive for Tri-Agency. She does not feel this would be feasible. They have positions open at Tri-Agency but have not received responses from any licensed animal technicians. They would need staff available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The main concern is for humane treatment and humane euthanas i a is. occurri ng by -trai ned personnel now at Tri-Agency. 6/9/80--16 . e The following people desired to testify against the proposed ordinance but, due to the time factor, their testimony was not heard: Carmen Kunkle, 700 Terry Street; Vera JatendOrf; 29127 Gimple Hill Road; Arlone J. Newell, 29107 Gimple Hi 11 Road; Marie Marcotto, Route 2, Box 330E, Corvallis; Kathleen flood, 3117 ferry Street; Barbara Clark, 28877 S~encer Creek Road; MarSie Van Gundy, 2727 Gateway, #39, Springfleld; Jon Spangler, 21 9 Elysium; Rosemary Christensen, 450 East 50th Avenue; Tom Danelski, Emerald Valley Vet Clinic; Charles Rosecrans, PO Box 877, Cottage Grove; Martha DeWees, 5303 Main Street, S~ringfield; Devon Trottier, 1399 franklin Boulevard; and Joan Walker, 2 97 Viewmont. There being no further time allotted for testimony, public hearing was closed. e Mr. L;euallen asked if the City not enacting the ordinance was a mistake. Mr. Long responded that it was, but County police power measures do not apply within home rule cities. Mr. Lieuallen asked if it would be necessary to have a veterinarian on the premises to supervise the animal technicians. Dr. Tom Oanelski stated that the vet must be on the premises according to State law. Mr. Obie asked how long it takes to become a licensed trained animal technician. Or. Oanelski responded that a certified technician must graduate from two years of course-related training and pass a State Board examination, or practice under a veterinarian for four years and then pass the State Board exam. Mr. Obie asked about the time factor and if this needs to have an emergency clause. Mr. Delay stated that that clause could be omitted. Mr. Obie noted he would like to see at least 30 days to enact this ordinance. Ms. Smith asked in regard to Mr. Pangborn's comment about the three jurisdictions having the same ordinance if that was a necessity. Mr. Long responded that he did not feel that Mr. Pangborn had said it was a necessity but that it would be preferable. Mr. Henry noted it might be better to have a 60-day rather than a 30-day effective date in order to recruit the necessary people. This ordinance would not be effective in Lane County and they would operate under a different ordinance at Greenhill. Mayor Keller asked why there were fewer restrictions on private veterinarians. Mr. Delay responded that it was to allow for more flexibility in the private sector. e 6/9/80--17 CB 2140--An ordinance concerning animal control, amending Section 4.355 of the Eugene Code~ 1971; adding Section 4.450 to that code; with a 60-day effective date. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council. e Ms. Miller stated she feels there needs to be strong rationale for changing an initiative ordinance but feels that people with proper training and supervision can probably handle the situation just as well. There is an obligation to the voters, however~ to abide by their decision. Mr. Delay stated he feels it should be made quite clear that no "foot dragging" is expected from staff on this issue. There is an obliga- tion for Tri-Agency management to do everything they can to recruit trained animal technicians. He wants the schools that will have graduating classes of animal technicians to be notified that there are positions available. He does not feel that recruitment would be a problem and thinks it could be done in 30 days~ although he does not want to quibble over 30 versus 60 days. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the Personnel Department would be doing the recruitment. Ms. Williams responded that Tri-Agency does their own recruiting. Mr. Lieuallen noted he would like a very strong commit- ment that policy direction will be carried out regardless of staff feelings. He felt there would be more ability with the City Personnel Department but since they do their own recruitment at Tri-Agency he 4It wants to make certain that the policy direction will be carried out. Mayor Keller noted that Tri-Agency is a cooperative effort and feels this should go through Springfield and Lane County for review. He indicated that just because Tri-Agency is located within Eugene does not give the City the right to force this on the other jurisdictions. The priority is animal control. Mr. Delay responded that there was an overwhelming vote by voters of the county that this be passed. Ms. Smith stated the policy board would be meeting again within the week and wondered if they would be looking at this ordinance. Mr. Delay noted the policy board had taken action on two items at previous meetings: 1) They had unanimously adopted Commissioner Rust's proposal to hire an animal technician for a kennel supervisor opening; and 2) through attrition, having all personnel become animal technicians. He stated he does not accept the position of the manage- ment team that they can give a better alternative than what was passed by the voters and the testimony tonight has not changed his mind. . 6/9/80--18 , . - Mr. Obie asked if the ballot measure specifically said "State licensed animal technician.1I Mr. Long responded that in May 1978, Lane County measure refers to ORS 6868350 which refers to the licensing of animal technicians. Mr. Obie stated if that is what people want then that is the way that it should be. Mayor Keller noted that perhaps within the 60 days they could persuade Springfield and Lane County to adopt a similar position. Mr. Delay stated he felt there was a good chance this could happen. This could be made uniform but it is not necessary. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2140 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; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18640. III. ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING A. Levy Assessments and Referral to Hearings Panel ,June 16, 1980-- CB 2141--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way within Clarey Plat First Addition (78-127) e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for heari ng June 16, 1980, with panel recorcmendati ons to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2142--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer ,and storm sewer within and adjacent to Canyon View Estates Subdivision (79-07) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2143--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and sidewalk on Fox Hollow Road from 43rd Avenue to Donald Street (79-28 ) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e 6/9/80--19 CB 2144--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way within Judkins Heights Sub- division; and sanitary sewer to serve the area within 160 feet of the east, north, and west boundaries (79-29) 4It Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2145--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer to serve Flatbush First Addition (79-34) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2146--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Lassen Street from Haig Street to Roosevelt Boulevard (79-35) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2147--An ordinance levying.assessments for paving, storm sewer, and sidewalk on 25th Avenue, from 450 feet east of Cleveland Street to 800 feet east of Cleveland Street (79-38) - e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2148--Levying assessments for storm sewer approximately 120 feet north of Vernon Way from Calvin Street to approximately 120 feet west of President Street (79-44) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. - 6/9/80--20 e e - CB2l49 .-An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer on Arcadia Street from 400 feet north of Harlow Road to 1,500 feet north of Harlow Road (79-53) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read for the first time June 9, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing June 16, 1980, with panel recommendations to be brought back for council consideration June 23, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The following items were held over: approval of Hearings Panel minutes of June 2, 1980; levying of assessments for council bills 2090, 2126-2133; consid- eration of findings and recommendations on apeals from determinations of the Zoning Board of Appeals heard by Hearings Panel on April 21, 1980; and payment of bills, claims, progress payments for period May 27, 1980, through June 9, 1980. Meeting was adjourned to June 11. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Charles T. Henr~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:so/CM26bl 6/9/80--21