01/27/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Gleason said it was his understanding that the alley was already vacated except for a small portion that was mistakenly not included. Mr. Croteau said the "meets and bounds" legal description is vague because it does not encompass the entire vacation area. In response to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. Croteau said the 1964 ordinance does not have to be reenacted because it was never recorded. Mr. Rutan asked about the potential negative impacts on Mr. Kruse's tenants. Mr. Croteau said the tenants will still have access, although they might not have as much room for ingress and egress. Mr. Rutan said he is concerned that action by the council could result in the tenants not being able to reach their back doors. In light of the issues raised at the public hearing, Mr. Croteau recommended the council postpone action to a later date to allow staff to further research the matter and notify those property owners who will be affected. Mr. Holmer moved, seconded by Ms. Bascom, to delay any action and readvertise the public hearing. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 7:0. e III. NUCLEAR FREE ZONE ORDINANCE City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Glen Potter, Intergovernmental Relations, presented the staff report. He reviewed the instructions from the council at its January 20, 1988, meeting that staff prepare two draft advisory questions. One would ask voters to choose between two nuclear free zone ordinances. The other would ask voters to consider whether Eugene should be a nuclear free zone and, if so, which version they prefer. Mr. Potter said there is a possibility that the nuclear free zone advisory question might be eliminated from the May ballot if there are too many other measures. If this occurs, the City would have to pay approximately $3,000 for a tabulation of a paper ballot. Mr. Holmer asked when the advisory ballot language would be finalized. Mr. Sercombe reviewed for councilors that they need to first pass a general ordinance that empowers them to ask for an advisory vote. Then, the council would pass a resolution putting the advisory questions on the ballot. He said it is his opinion an adivsory vote can be structured to ask beyond "yes/noll questions. He said he has not resolved the complications raised by the State Attorney Generalis Office last week. He reiterated comments from Dave Spriggs, Lane County Elections Office, that legal measures take precedence over advisory votes on the ballot. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1988 Page 5