HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 11/21/11 MeetingMINUTES
Eugene City Council
Council Chamber --City Hall
777 Pearl Street — Eugene, Oregon
November 21, 2011
7:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, George Brown, Andrea Ortiz, George Poling, Mike Clark,
Chris Pryor, Alan Zelenka, Pat Farr.
Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the November 21, 2011, public hearing of the Eugene City Council
to order.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Moss Street Located between East 15 Avenue and East
17 Avenue (VRI 10 -1)
City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced the item, a public hearing regarding a street vacation application
submitted by the University of Oregon (UO). He described the area of the vacation, which was the entire
north -south right -of -way Moss Street between East 15 and 17 avenues. He noted the applicable
approval criterion found in Eugene Code 9.8725, which was that the council must find the vacation to be
in the public interest.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Colin McArthur, 160 East Broadway, Cameron McCarthy Landscape and Planning, represented the UO.
He asked the council to approve the application as consistent with the approval criterion. He referred to
the council to the application materials for evidence of consistency. Mr. McArthur said the vacation
implemented East Campus Development Policy 5(e), which was codified in Eugene Code 9.5900. The
policy spoke to the purchase of Moss Street and conversion of on- street parking from parallel to head -in
parking. The street would continue to function as a two -way street open to the public and emergency
vehicles. A street connectivity study provided by the UO found no negative impacts. The vacation was
consistent with the City's street connectivity objectives, preserved access to adjacent neighborhoods, and
shifted maintenance costs from the City to the UO.
Frances Dyke, 1283 University of Oregon, Vice President for Finance and Administration, supported the
application. She thanked City staff for its assistance and concurred with the testimony of Mr. McArthur.
The vacation would allow the UO to reduce some of its impact on neighbors through the provision of
more on- campus parking. The vacation also assisted with arena parking. The UO planned to repair the
sidewalks, add street lighting, improve storm water treatment, and install traffic calming features.
Gregg Lobisser, 1228 University of Oregon, Assistant Vice President for Capital Projects and Student
Affairs, asked the council to approve the vacation. He concurred with the remarks of Mr. McArthur and
emphasized the UO's commitment to reducing the impact of UO operations on its neighbors. He said the
addition of new residential beds on campus did not add to parking demand as most students did not bring
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 1
Public Hearing
their cars to school. Mr. Lobisser observed that there were 3,750 beds in UO resident halls and in fall
2012 the Department of Public Safety sold 118 overnight parking permits.
Zachary Vishanoff, Ward 3, asked that the public record be held open for two weeks. He did not believe
the vacation was in the public interest. He questioned how the vacation met connectivity standards
because he believed that a public street was being closed to facilitate parking for the arena. Mr. Vishanoff
maintained that the UO increased street repair costs on the periphery of campus by keeping traffic out of
the core. He called for the City to require structured parking be constructed behind Knight Law School to
create more efficient traffic patterns. Mr. Vishanoff believed the City should demand the same densities
of campus that it was demanding of residents. He called for independent traffic studies.
There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and solicited public
comment.
Responding to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Associate Planner Steve Ochs said the vacation was
valued at $1.856 million.
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to leave the record open until
December 11, 2011.
Councilor Poling moved to amend the motion to leave the record open for one week.
The amendment to the motion died for lack of a second.
With the consent of his second, Councilor Clark, Councilor Zelenka amended his motion to change the
date the record closed to December 6.
Councilor Zelenka observed that the UO owned all the property along both sides of the street in the area
in question, so the proposal had no impact on other property owners. He reported that the Fairmount
Neighborhood Association recently discussed the issue and the more than 40 people in attendance had
expressed support for the proposal. He said he would also support the proposal when the council took
action.
Roll call vote: The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mayor Piercy was pleased to hear of the decline in auto use by UO students.
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Concerning the Human Rights Commission and Amending Sections 2.013,
2.265, 2.270, 2.275, and 2.280 of the Eugene Code, 1971
City Manager Ruiz introduced the item, reporting that the proposed ordinance amended the Eugene Code
to update the Human Rights Commission's structure and focus.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Jerry Smith, 5041 Saxon Way, supported the proposal before the council and endorsed the commission's
focus on homelessness. He then went on to discuss his concerns about the community's homeless and
advocated for the creation of a public shelter for the homeless.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 2
Public Hearing
Ruth Duemler, Ward 3, supported the proposed code changes and suggested the commission be given
more funding. She then went on to discuss her concerns about the community's homeless and their
needs, advocating for more bathrooms for the homeless.
Toni Gyatso, Ward 7, asked the council to support the code changes, which were proposed by the
commission after extensive community outreach. She reviewed the four recommendations made by the
commission and said the changes would allow the commission to be more nimble and effective.
Guadalupe Quinn, 3820 Greenwood Street, asked the council to support the proposed code revisions.
She thanked the HRC and staff for working for many months with the community to secure public input.
As a member of the group tasked to analyze the input, she had been glad to see the Listening Project's
focus on youth, the homeless, and immigrant populations.
Alexanra Gomez, 255 East 19' Avenue, #3, had responded to the Listening Project survey and had
recommended an emphasis on youth and immigrant communities and she continued to support those
priorities as well as the commission's four recommendations.
Neil Van Steenbergen, 1366 Lawrence, #8, supported the proposed code changes. He had been
concerned about the loss of the current committee structure but had been persuaded about the merit of the
proposed changes. He suggested the council and commission consider balance in the composition of the
commission along gender, racial, economic, and class lines.
Wayne Ford, 85560 Svarverud Road, chair of the Homeless Action Coalition, expressed support for the
code changes proposed by the commission and for the emphasis on homelessness in the commission's
work plan. He briefly discussed the challenge that disabled people faced in securing Social Security and
reported that 33 percent of eligible disabled people were not receiving the payments they were entitled to.
Mr. Ford suggested that the commission take on the task of helping such individuals secure disability
payments.
There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She solicited council
comments.
Councilor Farr acknowledged the work of Equity and Human Rights Manager Raquel Wells. He believed
the code changes would move the commission from a reactive to responsive position. He supported the
proposed changes. He also acknowledged commission Vice Chair Ken Neubeck and commissioners
Linda Hamilton and Richie Weinman, who were present at the meeting, and thanked them for their work.
Councilor Zelenka also thanked those who testified. He had been impressed with the Listening Project
and all the work that went into the recommendations before the council, which he supported.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
An Ordinance Extending the Sunset Date for the Rental Housing Code
City Manager Ruiz introduced the item, which was a public hearing on an ordinance to extend the sunset
date for the City's Rental Housing Code. He recommended a nine -month extension of the sunset to give
staff more time to address some of the council's concerns as well as the testimony the council would hear
tonight. Action on the extension was scheduled for November 28, 2011.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 3
Public Hearing
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Stephen Kramer, 42113 Deerhorn Road, Springfield, maintained most of the revenue collected by the
program was being used to collect the tax. There had been few legitimate complaints filed with the
program and an analysis of those complaints indicated almost all could have been addressed under
existing law, suggesting the program was redundant. The program was collecting a large surplus, which
also suggested the program was unnecessary. He believed the revenue supported a bunch of bureaucrats
who wished to extend and expand their bureaucratic base.
Jonathan Clay, 4529 SW Vermont Street, #6, Portland, represented the Metro Multi- Family Housing
Association. He urged the council to sunset the ordinance. His organization supported quality housing
and believed complaints of substandard housing should be investigated and addressed where problems
existed; however, the level of substandard housing complaints received by the City suggested they could
be addressed within existing City resources. At a minimum, he suggested the City limit the amount
collected for the Rental Housing Program to ensure there was only a prudent reserve at year's end. He
recommended a fee be reduced to be no more than $5 per unit, which would provide adequate program
funding and allow for the reserve. He believed it was unwise for the City to over - collect from its
taxpayer base in such difficult economic times.
Richard Thorin, Ward 7, owned 87 rental units in Eugene and had been paying the fee since its
inception. He termed the fee ridiculous. Mr. Thorin believed that existing State law was sufficient and
worked well. He had not realized any benefit from the Eugene program. He asked that his money be
refunded and that the ordinance be sunsetted immediately.
Brett Rowlett, 4970 Nectar Way, lead organizer for Eugene Citizens for Housing Standards, said he had
advocated for adoption of the code as a university student because he believed something needed to be
done about rental housing conditions in Eugene. His organization's research found that similarly sized
communities had rental housing programs. Mr. Rowlett maintained that the current program was
necessary because renters could not afford to go to Small Claims Court. He did not think the program
cost much, it was not proactive in seeking out complaints, and it encouraged landlords and tenants to
work out their disagreements. Mr. Rowlett asserted the program was supported by landlords, who
considered it a resource. Renters did not mind paying the fee and homeowners supported the program
because it protected their property values.
Paul Cauthorne, Ward 1, asked the council to end the Rental Housing Program. He suggested that the
program sounded great in theory when described by a past university student who advocated for it. He
reported he had attended the November 2010 meeting of the department advisory committee that advised
the City on the program, and members had requested information from staff to better quantify the value of
the program. Staff indicated that the committee was in place to support City staff objectives and
"essentially told to sit down and shut up." He did not think that was appropriate or what was intended.
Scott Smith, Ward 5, opposed the Rental Housing Code. He said advocates maintained there was an
overriding need for the program but he found that City staff was actively promoting the program to
tenants. He believed the record would demonstrate that the "groundswell of problems" the program was
created to solve did not exist. He believed the program represented "government for government" and
suggested staff would naturally recommend its continuance because staff benefited and could not be
objective. Mr. Smith termed the program a "cash cow" for the Planning and Development Department
and said it was difficult for citizens to monitor expenditures in the program because of the way it was
managed. The program was administration heavy. Because people were constantly buying and selling
property, staff spent time "cruising" Craigslist hoping to find new landlords to tax. The program was also
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 4
Public Hearing
paying $30,000 for general City accounting costs and that money did nothing for tenants or landlords. He
said the program might have helped a few people but not enough to justify its continuation.
Michael Steffen, 3709 Pine Canyon Drive, opposed extending the sunset for the Rental Housing Code for
any period of time. He agreed the program was redundant of State law and said if there was to be such a
program another approach should be found. He did not City government was the most effective program
provider. He agreed that the program was over - collecting revenues and was administrative - heavy. He
questioned why the City was spending $33,000 annually on overhead costs. Mr. Steffen estimated the
City's cost for each valid complaint to be $11,600. He also had concerns about transparency as it related
to the program, saying it was difficult to get information from staff about how it was spending its time.
Marlene Varady, Ward 2, identified herself as a rental property owner and recommended that the
council extend the sunset date. She said the program's excess revenues had been used to help tenants
make complaints about landlords who were not taking care of their properties. She considered that a good
thing. She suggested the program reserves be used to house homeless youth and proposed the City rent a
school for that purpose and allow the Rental Housing Association of Lane County to oversee the use of
funds.
Dennis Casady, PO Box 5028, asked that the ordinance be sunsetted and unused funds be returned to the
landlords. He believed that the Rental Housing Code was duplicative of Oregon Landlord Tenant Law,
which addressed all the issues covered by Eugene's code. He pointed out that if a tenant had a problem
he or she could take a landlord to court, stop paying rent, or repair the problem and deduct the cost of the
repairs from the rent. He believed the City's accountability for the program left much to be desired, and
pointed out the totals did not match in the complaint report provided to the council. As additional
evidence of the lack of accountability, Mr. Casady said that for the past two years he had received bills
from the City for two properties that were still under construction and lacked occupancy permits.
Maureen McCauley, 1755 East 23` Avenue, also asked the council to allow the ordinance to sunset.
She did not believe the ordinance was being administered in a fair and equitable manner. She described
her experience with the program and said she had to pay a nonrefundable $250 fee for her side of the
story to be heard. She had been cited for violating the code's heating standards but the City had not tested
the system and it was misidentified as an oil heating system in the City's report when it was actually a
natural gas system. The system was subsequently professionally tested by Home Comfort and it met all
City standards. She had provided a copy of the Home Comfort report and a copy of the appeal filed by an
attorney she was forced to hire to fight the City's order to correct. The City Manager subsequently
rescinded the order to correct. She said the experience was a costly emotional ordeal.
John VanLandingham, 335 Grand Street, Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center, said he
represented low- income tenants in landlord- tenant matters. He supported extending the sunset while the
City reviewed the program. He believed that State law was onerous and risky for tenants to use. While
State law did not require a tenant to hire a lawyer to sue a landlord, he averred one was necessary and
Eugene only had two lawyers who dealt with such lawsuits, which took a long time to be heard. He
further averred that tenants risked immediate eviction and ruined credit if they withheld rent as permitted
by State law. Mr. VanLandingham also maintained the purpose of the code was to improve the quality of
the community's rental housing stock. He believed a neutral, City - funded program was necessary if the
City wanted to be notified that something was wrong with a rental.
Scott Sanders, 495 Berrywood, opposed the extension of the Rental Housing Code. He suggested that
unless the public believed the council was managing government funds efficiently it would be hard to get
support for even the most valuable public services. He said the cost of the Rental Housing Program was
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 5
Public Hearing
borne by all taxpayers. The program was inefficient, redundant, and provided insufficient benefit for its
cost. He asked that the program be sunsetted as planned.
Barbara Lozar, 520 Antelope Way, termed the fee a useless tax and asked the council to sunset the
ordinance as soon as possible.
Jim Anderson, 32910 East Pearl Street, encouraged the council to allow the ordinance to sunset. He saw
no return on his family's investment in the program. He did not think the program, while well -
intentioned, was cost - effective and it was not meeting its purpose. He encouraged the council to develop
a program that relied on existing State law, existing programs, and existing City staff.
Norton Cabell, 1456 West 10 Avenue, representing the Housing Policy Board (HPB), encouraged the
council to extend the sunset for nine months. He said the HPB was concerned that the code might have
an impact on housing affordability. The HPB's mission was to increase the amount of safe housing for
low- income residents. He reported that he and Mr. VanLandingham co- chaired the committee that
advised staff on the program and they had concerns about how the code worked and would like to have
time to study the issues involved.
Eric Hall, 116 Highway 99, expressed concern that staff knew the sunset was coming but did little to
prepare options for the council. He was also concerned that staff did not solicit input about the future of
the program from its advisory committee. He noted the council had received a letter from Jim Straub of
the advisory committee expressing his concerns about the program. He suggested the council extend the
sunset March 31, 2012, and that an independent advisory committee that reported to Assistant City
Manager Sarah Medary be charged to return with options.
Nile Garling, 575 West 27"' Avenue, noted the exponential expansion of similar programs in other
communities such as Portland and Los Angeles and said such programs had a negative impact on housing
affordability. He was concerned about the program's effectiveness and questioned the need for the
program.
There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and solicited council
comment.
Councilor Taylor believed the establishment of the Rental Housing Code had been a demonstration of
democracy in action. She had supported the code and had objected to the sunset because the code's
proponents were not full -time advocates who could track the council's actions in the same way a
landlords association could. Councilor Taylor described her positive experience with the City's previous
rental housing code. She had not had time or money to act under State law but got immediate attention
from the City. She recalled that the previous code precluded landlords from raising the rent for a year if a
legitimate complaint was found. Councilor Taylor said that many landlords told her the $10 fee was a
bargain and suggested the few complaints the City received could be attributed to the existence of the
program.
Councilor Taylor said the existence of State law had no benefit for renters, who were not well -off or they
would be living in houses they owned. If they were students, they were too busy with their schoolwork to
take advantage of State law. She endorsed Ms. Varady's idea about the use of the reserves. She
suggested that the council consider adding energy efficiency measures to the program.
Mayor Piercy did not think it hurt the City to examine how the program was working.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 6
Public Hearing
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
Bascom Village
City Manager Ruiz introduced the item, a public hearing regarding the allocation of HOME funds, City
systems development charge waivers, and the disposition of the County Farm landbank site for
construction of Bascom Village, a 101 -unit affordable housing development proposed by St. Vincent de
Paul Society of Lane County and the Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) of Lane
County. He reported that the hearing was preceded by a neighborhood forum, two public hearings held
by the Housing Policy Board (HPB), and a council work session. The council was scheduled to take
action on the HPB's recommendation to approve the proposal on November 28, 2011.
Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to temporarily set aside the rules
and allow Mike Reeder to speak up to 40 minutes.
Councilor Clark suggested that the council might save time if Mr. Reeder, who represented the opponents
of the project, was allowed to speak first.
Councilors briefly discussed the motion, with councilors Taylor and Brown expressing opposition on the
basis of precedent, and councilors Pryor, Farr, and Poling expressing interest in such an approach to save
meeting time. Councilor Brown recommended the council discuss the issues raised at a process session.
Roll call vote: The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Poling, Clark, Pryor, and
Farr voting yes; councilors Taylor, Ortiz, Brown, and Zelenka voting no. Mayor Piercy
voted against the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4.
Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing.
Linda Hamilton, 2718 Martinique Avenue, said when the Human Rights Commission discussed the
Bascom Village proposal on November 15 she had been cut off from presenting information about her
findings about the November 9 forum by another commissioner with a personal agenda. That was the
first time she had ever been cut off at a commission meeting. Ms. Hamilton asked the council to hear
both sides of the issue. She never again wanted to be in a position as a City commissioner where she felt
only one side was being heard.
Rick Satre, 375 West 4` Avenue, supported the proposed development, noting the property in question
was appropriately designated and zoned. It was in public ownership and intended for use as an affordable
housing development. He noted there were 77 different affordable housing developments dispersed
through Eugene and many people were unaware such a project was located near them. He believed the
developers of the proposed project were conscious of the need to consider scale, massing, setbacks, and
buffering. The project helped the community meet its growth management goals. Mr. Satre suggested
the alternative to the proposed project would be a market -rate project that could have as many as 28
dwelling units per acre.
Maria Thomas, PO Box 23 74 1, supported affordable housing and worked with low - income families. She
did not believe the proposed project was in the best interest of the low- income families she worked with
because of the high densities proposed, which were not conducive to a healthy, stress -free environment.
It was challenging for families to live on second and third floors in a micro - managed culture. She called
for a project with lower densities comprised of duplexes with yards where children could play. Ms.
Thomas suggested the council support the best quality housing that supported a healthy lifestyle for
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 7
Public Hearing
people. Ms. Thomas believed equity of education was another issue as the current enrollment data
provided by School District 4J indicated there were 1,481 students attending Sheldon Eugene High
School, compared to 1,027 students at Churchill High School and 1,069 students at North Eugene High
School.
Jean Kingrey, 2372 Parkrose Drive, said the City had not considered the issues raised by project
opponents. The HPB deferred those issues to the council as being beyond the HPB's mandate so the
council needed to consider all the information presented to the HPB before making a decision. Ms.
Kingrey disagreed with the City Attorney Glenn Klein's contention that approval of Bascom Village was
not a quasi-judicial decision. She suggested that the fact the Housing Dispersal Policy required the
council to balance a variety of interests, investigate the evidence, and draw conclusions from its
investigation made the decision a quasi-judicial action subject to court challenge.
Ms. Kingrey said City staff represented that the 60 -unit restriction in the Housing Dispersal Policy only
addressed units with two more bedrooms but the policy included no such language. She suggested the
council ask the City Attorney if he found a sound legal basis for that position and if it had ever been
asserted before the challenge to Bascom Village. She noted Housing Financial Analyst Becky Wheeler's
response to her on the issue, which she provided to the council. Ms. Kingrey suggested the attorney be
consulted on the question of whether the inclusion of a Head Start facility in Bascom Village violated the
R -2 zoning for the area. She also questioned whether repeated transfers of City property at no cost or
below market value to a religious institution such as St. Vincent de Paul raised First Amendment issues
under the third test established by the United States Supreme Court in the case Lemon v. Kurtzman.
Virginia Thompson, 2552 Britannia Place, a member of the HPB and-former member of the school
board for School District 4J, said she did not speak for the district but her comments had been reviewed
by district personnel for accuracy. She reported the district indicated that neighborhood schools near the
property in question had considerable capacity for the number of students projected to live at Bascom
Village. Ms. Thompson said that enrollment in Sheldon region schools were down by more than 500
students over peak enrollment in 2007. The district had proven strategies to shift enrollments, close and
consolidate schools, and adjust boundaries while still providing students with a quality education. It was
not known how many students would live in Bascom Village and Ms. Thompson suggested some might
already live in the area. There was two years to plan for the additional students. She emphasized that
stable, quality homes helped level the playing field for low- income students.
Stan Smith, 3620 MeadowView Drive, did not support Bascom Village. He owned 23 units on Matt
Drive and shared the northern boundary line with Maplewood Meadows, an existing 38 -unit low- income
development. He said that not all low- income families were undesirable neighbors but it was naive to
believe they were always good neighbors. His low- income neighbors regularly abandoned grocery carts
on his property and his tenants experienced low -level crimes. Tenants of the low- income used his
complex as a shortcut to reach Coburg Road and tagged fences and buildings. He had encountered young
men roaming the area at night and found that intimidating. He had to hire an on -site property manager to
safeguard his property.
Jordan Pape, 2362 Lakeview Drive, advocated for consistency in the implementation of City policies.
He said neighbors' objections were not based on the income of prospective residents and pointed out there
was a trailer park directly to the north of the area. He said while it might be true Sheldon schools could
absorb new students from Bascom Village he questioned how the schools could accommodate students
from all the other current and planned development. Mr. Pape said development was occurring in the
area without adequate infrastructure to support it. Area schools had 50 percent more students than North
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 8
Public Hearing
Eugene and Churchill. He asked the council to consider redirecting the proposed development to an area
with more capacity for growth.
Chris Leighton, 2264 Lakeview Drive, He said neighbors did not feel heard at the HPB hearing, which
was held mid -day when many residents could not attend because the time conflicted with Gilliam
Elementary School's release. He objected to characterizations of neighbors as wealthy elites and noted
his own blue collar origins and volunteer community service. Mr. Leighton questioned the amount of
debt that the federal government was incurring and asked how such developments were being paid for.
He suggested the property be sold to a tax paying entity and the revenues be used for public services.
Diana Graff, 2308 Parkview Drive, also felt the neighbors were not heard by the HPB. She asked how a
pregnant mother pushing a stroller, perhaps accompanied by other children, was expected to walk four
blocks to the bus on a street without sidewalks or street lights. She also believed it was a gross misuse of
government funds for a member of the HPB member to suggest residents of Bascom Village could spend
their food stamps at Safeway or Albertsons and said those were the highest priced grocery stores in the
area. She also questioned how grandparents with custody of small grandchildren were expected to walk
that far in the cold to a bus that ran only twice daily.
Wally Graff, 2308 Parkview Drive, did not believe the HPB's hearing notice was adequate. He did not
think the process was fair because members of the HPB had already made their minds up about the
proposal. They did not reach out to the neighbors to discuss the best approach. He said the City needed
to include residents in the decision making process. He questioned the size of the proposed development
and the location, which was not proximate to grocery stores, bus lines, or other services. Mr. Graff
recommended that if the development were to proceed, the City require the developer to construct the
infrastructure needed to serve it, including sidewalks.
Phyllis Hockley, 220 North Adams, #2, supported Bascom Village because it would help children living
there to build relationships and have a sense of community. Children growing up in stable situations had
stable lives. She believed a home was a basic need and in the absence of low- income housing, many
would not have a home. She commended the low - income housing built by St. Vincent de Paul. Ms.
Hockley believed that neighbors to the proposed development had legitimate concerns about schools,
traffic, and the need for sidewalks, and advocated that all work together to resolve them to ensure Bascom
Village became a reality.
Kevin Reed, 3117 River Bend Avenue, anticipated that residents of Bascom Village would need more
services than most people but the site proposed for the development was not well served. He estimated
that approximately 1,100 multi - family housing units were being developed in the area and nobody
appeared to be taking that into consideration. He questioned if there was sufficient infrastructure to serve
the new development and pointed out the majority of the added traffic would travel down two
neighborhood streets. He believed the City should have worked with the neighborhood to determine how
to best serve the needs of all, not just a single group.
Lorane Hunt, 2610 Edgewood Drive, suggested that single - family development next to an affordable
housing development was a recipe for disaster. She questioned who was responsible for maintaining the
quality of life for tenants and adjacent homeowners after construction. She believed that neighbors to the
proposed development deserved both an answer and a guarantee the neighborhood would be protected,
repaired, and enhanced. She said her disabled neighbor had spent six years addressing the impact of a
nearby affordable housing development and had recently received a letter from the executive director of
the agency that managed the project saying he was tired of hearing her complaints and informing her that
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 9
Public Hearing
it was a misconception for her to think that what happened in the parking lot was her business because it
was not her property.
Christy Albin, 2403 Parkview Drive, had looked forward to the construction of single- family houses on
the property in question. She said neighbors were blindsided to find that a multi -story 101 -unit
development was proposed with inadequate parking in the expectation that excess parking would be
accommodated on- street and with only one planned egress onto Parkview Drive. Several hundred
neighbors attended a hearing at the Sheldon Community Center to learn more about the project.
Unfortunately, it was too late; HPB members had made up their minds and did not consider neighbors'
concerns. The HPB was too committed to the project to do anything but support it. She asked the council
to slow the process, build the project right, or refrain from building it. Ms. Albin asked the council to
consider neighborhood livability of both existing and future residents.
John VanLandingham, 325 North Grand Street, reviewed his written submission as it related to the
City's Housing Dispersal Policy in support of the Bascom Village proposal.
Darin Housley, 2402 Parkview Drive, questioned the adequacy of the notice provided by the City and
noted his property was directly adjacent to the project and he never received notice. He questioned siting
a low- income housing development at the periphery of the community where no services existed. He
suggested the property be sold and the proceeds invested in a more appropriately located site. He
believed that made more sense for future tenants. He appreciated that the HPB held a second hearing but
felt neighbor's comments fell on deaf ears. All the HPB members were advocates for low- income
housing but no one was advocating on behalf of other citizens. Mr. Housley said such housing was
needed but its location must make sense.
Jerry Rouleau, 2337 Parkview Drive, reiterated the concerns expressed by others about the process and
the fact the neighbors were not included in the process. He asked why the HPB did not include the
neighbors in its process; why no one talked to Lane Transit District before residents raised the issue of
bus service; if City staff had called the principals of area schools to ask about the impact of the proposed
development; why the traffic study done for the project did not address both properties; if the two
developments were aware of each other; if the HPB went through the same process that other non - public
developers went through; why the proposal disregarded Envision Eugene; why research was done only
after the neighbors asked questions; if any of the councilors or members of the HPB had driven in the
neighborhood at 5 p.m.; why no sidewalk was being built from Bascom Village to Crescent Street; and if
Sheldon High School was full. Mr. Rouleau suggested if students could not transfer to Churchill High
School to Sheldon High School, it must be full. He asked about the impact of House Bill 3681, which
allowed students to transfer to any school they wanted to attend, on area schools.
Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Farr, moved to extend the meeting to 11 p.m.
Mayor Piercy determined there was no objection.
Sara Bergsund, 1579 Charnelton Street, Bergsund Delaney Architects, said the design complied with
City requirements for density. The site's zoning permitted up to 136 units, or 28 units per acre; 101 units,
or 21 units per acre, was proposed. She believed any further reduction called into question the City's
stated goals for affordable housing and compact urban development. She noted the developer was
pursuing the 150 density bonus allowed for such developments. Ms. Bergsund said that Public Works
staff indicated that the site's zoning was taken into account in City planning for infrastructure and there
was sufficient design capacity on County Farm Road, Matt Drive, and Parkview Drive. Right -of -way
improvements were planned for all three streets, including a sidewalk on County Farm Road.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 10
Public Hearing
Arlean Moses, 2150 Lakeview Drive, observed that none of the people speaking in support of the
proposal lived in the affected neighborhood. She said the issue was not about the development's
compliance with the code but rather than about neighbors' desires to be included in the decision that they
were going to have to live with. She said that one of the HPB members had been offended by neighbors'
passion about the issue and did not appreciate their questions. Ms. Moses reported she had asked the
HPB about the impact of the development on property values. Did property values go down or did they
go up? She wanted true information about the impact of the development on the schools. Ms. Moses
asked why residents could not get an answer to the question of whether Sheldon High School was full and
questioned who from the district was providing the information. She asked if area principals had been
consulted. She said residents had children in those schools, and their experience was very different than
the reports the council received. She asked which was true, neighbors' experience or those reports.
Ms. Moses invited the council at visit her home and sit in her yard at 5 p.m. to view the congestion and
activity on the street. They would understand why the neighbors were asking that the process be slowed.
She was not against affordable housing. She understood the need for and the value of such housing but
believed that Bascom Village was the wrong project at the wrong time in the wrong place.
Carl Swan, 2225 Devon Avenue, concurred with the remarks of Mr. Pape. He likened the HPB hearing
to the Twilight Zone, with the same response consistently offered to all neighbors' questions. He asked
the council not to approve the project as presented. He said something was wrong with the process.
Someone did not do their job. He asked the council to "push the pause button."
Greg Woods, 2364 Parkview Drive, said he had attended meetings of the HPB and had been struck by an
article by David Brooks who wrote about "motivated blindness," which the condition of not seeing what
was not in your best interest to see. People suppressed the facts they did not like, they tended to inflate
their own virtues, and believed they acted more nobly that they did. He witnessed such behavior at the
HPB when a board member had attacked a member of the public at the end of a meeting. Mr. Woods
asked the council to separate the "vital lies" from the truth. He suggested examples of such vital lies were
arguments that the neighbors were rich people who opposed the poor, their concerns revolved around
reduced property values, the current infrastructure was adequate, and that St. Vincent de Paul was a
nonprofit agency so everything it did must be good.
John Jaworski, 2985 Lord Byron, Chair of the Northeast Neighbors, called for a focus on concrete steps
that could be taken to minimize the project's impact on the neighborhood. He said his organization's
concerns were not about affordable housing, which it supported, or the dispersal policy, which it
supported, or about Bascom Village itself. The organization was worried about the size of Bascom
Village and the cumulative impact of Drakes Crossing on neighborhood livability, character, and safety.
The two projects were inside a two -block area and would bring an additional 800 to 1,000 residents,
including 200 or more school children, and add 1,800 to 2,000 trips per day to local streets. He identified
transportation/traffic, residents' mobility, access to services, and education as key issues. He asked that
local streets impacted by the proposed developments be upgraded as soon as possible and advocated for
traffic calming measures to reduce speeding. He asked the City to persuade LTD to serve the area with
bus service and bus shelters. He recommended that the school district develop a contingency plan to
addressed school crowding.
Michael Reeder, 800 Willamette Street, Suite 800, Arnold Gallagher Parcells Robert, asked the council
to reject the Request for Proposals for Bascom Village and return the property in question to its original
low- density residential designation in the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan. He
believed the property's medium - density residential designation was in error and should not have occurred
without some provision for buffering. He did not think the site was appropriate under the City's Housing
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 11
Public Hearing
Dispersal Policy. He said the policy was aspirational in policy but aspirational did not mean "ignore." It
was a goal. Mr. Reeder emphasized that 43 percent of all family low - income housing in the community,
which was the housing subject to the dispersal policy, was in the Sheldon region. He suggested that the
council not make the decision a political one; he agreed the decision was a quasi-judicial decision and he
believed the council needed to treat it as such. Mr. Reeder submitted written testimony.
Keith Baskett, 2275 Lakeview Drive, said his road, one of two accessing the proposed site, was already
very busy. The proposed multi - family developments would add hundreds of cars to the roads. He
encouraged the council to visit the area and consider the conditions that currently existed. He said the
Bascom Village proposal did not make sense and he believed it should be reduced in size and the
infrastructure improved. He objected that the land was taken out of the tax base. He asked the council to
take its time and make a good decision.
Terry McDonald, 3062 Whitbeck Boulevard, St. Vincent de Paul, said there were many different kinds
of low- income housing projects serving different populations and people self - selected for projects based
on their need. He acknowledged that Bascom Village was on the periphery but there was still
transportation connectivity. The majority of families living in such housing, which he characterized as
workforce housing, had cars. He believed that future residents would self - select for connectivity to reach
services depending on their situation. Families living in such developments tended to have only one car,
which did not add as much traffic to the streets but still provided connectivity to nearby services. He said
residents could shop at Wal -Mart, which was 1.7 miles away, if they chose not to shop at Safeway, which
was 1.4 miles away. He acknowledged that a sidewalk on County Farm Road was needed and said St.
Vincent De Paul would work with the City to provide it. He said that current lack did not take away from
the fact the site was appropriate for needed housing.
Ardel Wicks, 3369 Arlington Drive, said automobiles represented a large expense for low- income
residents and he was concerned that Bascom Village residents would be dependent on automobiles
because of the site location and inadequate bus service. He also noted the City's own goals for reducing
the use of fossil fuels. He understood the aspirational nature of the Housing Dispersal Policy but pointed
out that it contained very real numbers and he was concerned about the large increase in the number of
allowed units. He asked the council to consider the total impact of all development in the area.
Norton Cabell, 1456 West 10 Avenue, representing the HPB, provided a timeline of the actions that led
to the site's designation for medium - density residential use and noted that the neighbors received notice
about the property's annexation and rezoning. He noted the City's outreach to the neighborhood and the
HPB's decision to slow the process to allow for more input. He believed it was impossible to satisfy
everyone's process complaints or to pick a perfect site. There would always be opposition. The HPB had
discussed the neighbors' concerns and concluded they were manageable and would be addressed over
time.
Richie Weinman, 55 West 31 Avenue, submitted the Human Rights Commission's written testimony in
support of Bascom Village. He spoke of the need for low - income housing and commended the City for
taking the interests of the entire community, not just the neighbors of a particular project, into account.
He said such developments provided housing for thousands of households and were safe and positive
additions to their neighborhoods. Residents would live on the site by choice, have automobiles, and
decide where to shop and attend church. He said the "same tired arguments" used by neighbors had been
used by residents opposed to other low- income developments but the council supported each one. Mr.
Weinman said there had been no research or data to support the Housing Dispersal Plan's aspirational
goal of 60 units at any single site. It was a compromise worked out by the Planning Commission to
balance City goals and policies.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 12
Public Hearing
Chuck Hank, 2465 Parkview Drive, an employee of HACSA, supported Bascom Village because he
believed in a just and compassionate community and such housing was needed as demonstrated by the
many applications HACSA received for low- income housing assistance. He had lived in the region for
more than 31 years and it was clear to him the area in question would be developed. He asked if it was it
more desirable for the neighborhood to have regulated development or unregulated private development
that did not take into account the community's need for well- managed affordable housing. He predicted
that the quality of management and construction at Bascom Village would be far superior to a comparable
private development. He also predicted that residents of Bascom Village would take advantage of the
housing to improve their lives and then they would move on. The development would provide needed
assistance to families who were already employed but could not afford the high rents of the current
market. He asked the council to support the proposal.
Larry Abel, Executive Director of HACSA, spoke of the need that existed for affordable housing and the
lack of funding that existed. He said that funding for low- income housing had been dramatically reduced
in the face of greatly increased need. He said the community was fortunate that land bank sites were
available because they made development of Bascom Village feasible. He noted that the proposal was the
first joint submittal by HACSA and St. Vincent de Paul and he looked forward to the two agencies
working together to provide decent and safe low- income housing to residents.
Tom Moseman, 2559 Parkview Drive, also supported Bascom Village and hoped to see a community
solution to the lack of low- income housing in Eugene. He suggested that it would have been challenging
for the neighbors to know the public intent for the site given it was not annexed and rezoned until 2009
and 2010 and owned by the County previous to that. He appreciated that the HPB had slowed the process
but also felt that there was not much of a dialogue between the board and project neighbors.
Brian Land, 2320 Devon Avenue, said he had two children in Sheldon High School and could confirm
the school was crowded. He believed the development would increase school crowding and wanted the
council to consider the cumulative impact of such projects. He pointed out the council had the ability to
decide the location of such projects relative to school capacity. Mr. Land said that everyone wanted a
positive experience for students and school crowding did not help. He said that neighbors were not
opposed to low - income housing and recognized the need; however, they wanted to be involved in the
decision - making process. He said that residents did expect that the Housing Dispersal Policy would be
considered, the 38 units on Matt Drive taken into account, and the lack of services would be addressed.
That did not occur. Mr. Land said a more collaborative approach was needed.
There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. She thanked those who
spoke and said the council would consider their input.
Councilor Clark noted that he lived three blocks from the development site and believed the development
would place an additional burden on an already burdened transportation system. One could not get onto
Crescent Avenue at the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. With due respect to Ms. Thompson and Barb Bellamy
of School District 4J, Councilor Clark clarified that the district indicated it could absorb additional
students on a district -wide basis rather than on the basis of individual schools' enrollments. He
questioned the enrollment numbers provided by the district. Councilor Clark reported he had discussed
the impact of the additional students his child's school absorbed as a result of the closures of Coburg and
Meadowlark schools with the school principal and came away from that conversation believing there was
no way to add 100 additional students to area schools.
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 13
Public Hearing
Councilor Clark asked if the council's decision could be appealed. City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton
indicated she would follow -up after doing more research. Councilor Clark wanted to know on what basis
the council decision could be appealed, and asked the attorney to respond to the testimony offered by Ms.
Kingrey.
Councilor Poling was familiar with the area in question and agreed with Councilor Clark that traffic was a
major concern. In regard to the issue of school capacity, Councilor Poling believed the council needed to
weigh the question of capacity against the quality of education. He said the schools could probably
absorb the additional children but he questioned what happened to the children who would live in
Willakenzie Crossing and other proposed developments. He had many questions and reservations about
the project and said he would review all the public input he received.
Mayor Piercy recalled the public outcry about the Fox Hollow low- income housing project but neighbors
had no subsequent problems with the development after it was built. She believed the neighbors to the
proposed development had legitimate concerns but also believed most of those concerns could be
addressed.
Councilor Brown thanked all those who testified. He challenged those who disputed the school district's
figures to provide accurate figures.
Councilor Farr also thanked those who offered testimony.
Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,8 JO AAIA
Beth Forrest
City Recorder
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 21, 2011 Page 14
Public Hearing