Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1987 Meeting (2) - --- MINUTES - Eugene City Council City Council Meeting Council Chamber--City Hall November 16t 1987 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Cynthia Wootent Robert Bennettt Roger Rutant Debra Ehrmant Freeman Holmert Jeff Millert Emily Schuet and Ruth Bascom The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. I. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Obie gave an opportunity to those who wished to address the council about subjects that are not scheduled for council consideration. Amber Reidt a member of a local Girl Scout Troop, presented Mayor Obie with a 1988 Girl Scout Calender. The calenders are on sale from November 14-December 6 for $2 each. She said people interested in purchasing a calender can call the Girl Scout office for a troop in their area. Mayor Obie thanked Ms. Reid for her presentation and congratulated the Girl Scouts for their work in the e community. II. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO THE SOLAR ACCESS REGULATIONS City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the item. Jim Croteau of the Planning Department presented the staff report. He said the public hearing is to hear testimony about five amendments to the existing City ordinances for solar access regulations. The amendments are the result of a City Council forum earlier this year to hear concerns from the building community about the restrictiveness of the proposed solar setback requirements. The amendments are primarily the work of Councilman Miller and various interested parties. Mr. Croteau gave a brief description of each amendment: 1: Change the date of solar access protection from December 21 to January 2l. Under the current ordinancet approximately 8.6 percent of the solar resource is lost. If the date is changedt the loss would increase to approximately 20 percent. 2. Change the guaranteed height from 24 to 26 feet. Mr. Croteau said homeowners and builders feel the height regulation is too restrictive for the new styles of homes that have steeper roofs. In addition, the guaranteed height in the R-3 high-density district would be raised from 28 to 30 feet as part of the amendment. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 1 3. Change the solar fence from 8 feet to either 10 or 12 feet. Mr. Croteau said the solar fence height is used to calculate how far a house e must be set back from the north property line. For every 2-feet increase in the fence height, 2 feet of the structure1s south wall is shaded. 4. Change the slope adjustments in the solar regulations from every 3 degrees to 5 degrees. Current slope-measuring tables are in increments of 3 degrees. Mr. Croteau said the change to increments of 5 degrees would allow for easier calculation by both home builders and the City Building Division. 5) Include an exemption for the solar access regulations allowing construction of two-story structures in areas surrounded by two-story buildings. Mr. Mill er sa i d the slope amendment decided upon by the subcommittee of interested parties recommended 6 percent and not 5 percent. Six percent was chosen as a logical increase from 3 percent, he said. Ms. Ehrman said she thought the 5-percent figure was chosen because staff felt it would be easier to work with than three. Mr. Miller reiterated his feeling the 6-percent figure was a logical increase from 3 percent. He added the motion made was for a 6-percent slope amendment. Ms. Bascom noted in Mr. Croteau1s presentation he listed the percentage changes in solar access for only the first amendment. She asked if he intended to list the percentages for the other four. Mr. Croteau sa i d he neglected to do that. Referring to a chart in the councilors' packet, he said the date change combined with a 10-foot fence regulation would result in a 52- percent loss. The date change combined with a 12-foot fence regulation would e mean a 68-percent loss of solar access. He said there has not been a detailed energy analysis for the other amendments. The slope tables, however, would result in a minimal amount of percentage change, and the guaranteed height is not an across-the-board change but would only be an energy loss in certain cases, Mr. Croteau said. Mr. Miller asked if the wording change he has been working on for the fifth amendment should be distributed for inclusion as part of the public hearing. Mayor Obie and Ms. Ehrman wondered if discussion of the item was appropriate since the public has not had a chance to review it. Mr. Croteau said the council could still have a first and second reading of the amendments tonight. Regarding citizen involvement, he said the council could read the wording change tonight so the public would have opportunity to respond. City Attorney John Arnold advised the action would be legal. Mr. Miller read the wording change, which would come under Section 9.535. The underlined word was added. "When a lot existing in December 1,1987, is a part of a subdivision having predominantly multiple-story dwellings, then the permitted height and setback of a lot shall be the maximum permitted in the zoning district." Mr. Miller said it is his understanding the wording change would help maintain a compatibility of housing structures that already exist in a subdivision. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 2 Mr. Bennett asked if the change is intended to apply to already existing subdivisions. Mr. Miller responded that is the intention, and reiterated the e aim is to preserve the compatibility of neighborhoods. Ms. Schue asked if the proposal meant that no restrictions had to be followed other than those in the zoning ordinance. She said she was also unsure of what is meant by IIpredominantly.1I Mr. Miller said other restrictions would still app ly, and added the proposal is desi gned to protect a nei ghborhood by prohibiting an individual from constructing a house that was previously prevented by ordinance. He suggested the words "over 50 percentll could be added to clarify "predominantly.1I Ms. Schue said she still thinks the language is too vague. Mr. Miller said he does not object to changing the wording for clarification purposes. Ms. Bascom asked if the proposal is intended to be substituted for the fifth amendment. Mr. Miller said that it was. He said his aim is to have a broader amendment that would cover planned developments of'several houses. Mr. Gleason pointed out the council could adopt the amendment and alter the language at a later date. Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. Alan Zelenka, 1358 E. 23rd, said he represented the Solar Energy Association of Oregon, a proponent of solar energy. He said the association1s board has unanimously passed a resolution supporting the existing solar access ordinance. He added it is the collective opinion of the board that the solar access ordinance will not increase the cost of housing. e Gary W. Cook, 402 Lindley Lane, said he is pleased to see the council making an effort to work with solar access regulations. But he is disturbed that the council went through the same process one year ago and arrived at an ordinance that is already a compromise between solar energy advocates and building interests. He said he is opposed to the amendments because they would hurt his business, a local manufacturing firm that produces south-facing solariums. The amendments would prohibit him from expanding to a national market and result in a loss to the local economy of between $1 million and $14 million in potential manufacturing business. Kathy Ging, 4975 North Way, identified herself as a real estate agent in the Eugene a rea. She reminded the council of legislation pa s sed by the 1987 Legislature that gives tax breaks to homeowners incorporating solar and other renewable energy sources. Since the legislation will take effect at the same time as Eugene1s solar access ordinances, January, I, 1988, she said it is important the council demonstrate its support for so 1 a r energy by not approving the more restrictive amendments. She said the percentage of new homes using solar energy in the city of Ashland increased to 40 percent in two years after the Ashland City Council approved solar access regulations. Sue Jakabosky, 2018 Orchard St., said she is vice president of the Willamette Valley Solar Energy Association. She said not adopting the amendments would be a strong show of support for the large number of people who have already e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 3 incorporated solar technology into their homes. Sun tempering can reduce a house1s overall heating requirements between 5 and 25 percent. Solar designs e can reduce natural gas heating needs between 10 and 50 percent and water heating costs by 40 to 60 percent. She said statistics of building plans submitted to the City's Building Division show 80 to 90 percent had no problem complying with the exisiting ordinance. She urged the council not to change the ordinance to satisfy the desires of "a few special interests." Rick Bliss, 1927 Van Buren, said he is a homeowner with a solarized, weatherized home. He said his home has been part of a three-year energy monitoring program sponsored by the State of Oregon. Mr. Bliss said the study has shown his electric energy use is lower than both the control and model homes being monitored. He said regular access to the sun is crucial for his system to work. He pointed out he has entered into an agreement with his neighbor to the north to ensure that neither household undertake remodeling that would shade both houses from the sun. Laurie Power, Governmental Affairs Coordinator for the Eugene Water Electric Board, addressed the results of an analysis done by EWEB to assess the energy impacts of the proposed amendments. She said the amendments, particularly the changes to the solar fence and the house hei ght guarantee, would cause "significant reduction" in solar energy benefit. The energy savings from solar uses benefit the entire community, she said. Solar access regulations allow for several benefits including avoiding a potential surcharge by the Bonneville Power Administration that would impact all EWEB customers. She said EWEB is opposed to the amendments because of the loss of energy that would have to be made up with other costs to the community. e Robert Thompson, 2108 Lincoln St., said he supports the existing ordinances. He said he is considering remodeling the southwest side of his home and installing a solarium. He said he woul d be di sturbed if hi s nei ghbor was permitted to install a roof or fence that would restrict his sun access. He urged the board not to adopt the amendments and said the ordinance can be changed at later date. John Bennett, 1679 Willamette St., said he is representing the Homebuilders Association of Lane County. The association's board of directors, despite their continuous opposition to the existing solar ordinance, do support the amendments as a compromise. Discussing the amendments, he pointed out a guaranteed building height of 26 feet is still shorter than the 30 feet minimum being considered by the City 0 f Portland. The change of slope adjustments from 3 to 6 percent would help in the administration of the calculations, he said. Mr. Bennett sa i d there is a need for exemptions including the proposal to maintain compatibil ity within existing subdivisions, a provision for handling pre-existing shade conditions, and administrative relief in code regulations for houses built near a cliff where the height restrictions are not relevant. He said a 10-foot fence restriction would not impact the heating potential of a significant number of houses. On the houses that are affected, the energy loss is minimal at $2 to $3 a month. He informed council members of a $250,000 solar energy study being sponsored by the Bonneville Power Administration that is tentatively working with a 12- foot fence minimum. He urged the council to undertake a revi ew of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 4 ordinance after six months to evaluate other possible solar access calculation formulas, as well as update itself on what other cities are doing. e John Reynolds, Professor of Architecture at the University of Oregon, asked the City Council to make no further compromises on the solar access regulations. Brent Rich, 2022 Jefferson St., is an employee of Cuddeback Realty Co., which is developing a 39-lot complex in the south hills. He sa i d severa 1 of the builders who want to construct houses on the complex are unable to do so under the existing ordinance. He said it is unfair for Cuddeback, which for nine years cooperated with the City to meet existing ordinances, to now be told they cannot build on several of the lots that were created in accordance with the requirements. He said Cuddeback supports the amendments because they would make it easier to build on more of the lots. Vivian Wearne, 1510 Em Ray Drive, said she supports maximum solar protection and urged the council not to change the existing ordinance. Rawlin Westover, 4034 Main, Springfield, President of the Oregon State Homebuilders Association, said the association is concerned with solar access even though it negatively impacts the building industry. He asked the council to vote in support of the amendments. Tom Scott, 2018 Orchard St., said he is in favor of the present ordinance. He said solar power advocates are anxious to work with the home builders to integrate more solar technology into new homes. He said electricity costs have increased 300 percent in the 15 years he has been involved with solar e systems. He pointed out the solar energy industry supported the home builders in the early 1980s during the building slump. Extending the fence height would deprive solar-heated homes of $1,000 in the tax credits passed by the Legislature, he said. Richard Britz, 37 W. 13th Avenue, Suite 201, said he is a registered architect and President of Pacific Basin Shelter Co. He urged the counci 1 adopt the ordi nance without further restrictions because of the growing number of architects who are attempting to put solar energy to work for private and commercial clients. He said the ordinance would protect conservation-based jobs and encourage innovative solar design programs. Boyd Iverson, 2670 Bowmont Dr., said he is concerned the existing ordinance will restrict people from building new homes. He said there is high concern for building homes that are energy efficient, but only about 5 to 10 percent of those potential home builders are interested in pursuing solar technology options. He asked the council to pass the amendments as a protection to those who do not want solar as well as those who do. Craig Patterson, 2410 Monroe St., told the council he has voluntarily signed an agreement with his northerly neighbor guaranteeing their solar access. He said he is also a contractor specializing in solar construction. The larger question before the council, he said, is whether the City wants to pursue a renewable or nonrenewable energy path. He urged the council, as members of an e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 5 --.. enlightened community, not to change the existing ordinance in the interest of an energy source that is environmentally safe and enhances local se If- e reliance. Richard E. Miller, 2460 Macabar Dr., is a member of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and a member of the Planning Land Use Subcommittee. He said he is in favor of the amendments because they transfer the cost of the solar heating system to those who benefit from the solar ordinance. If a person wants the benefit of solar access, he or she should purchase it, he said. Sally Weston, 2595 Highland Dr., said she is appearing before the council on behalf of the League of Women Voters. She asked the council to heed the advice of EWES and retain the existing solar access ordinances. She noted the ordinance is already a compromise for those on both sides of the solar access issue. She said individuals should be able to make their own choice about access to the sun and not have it dictated to them by what gets built on neighboring lots. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. He asked if staff has any response to the public hearing. Mr. Croteau responded to a suggestion from Mr. Bennett that the City conduct a review of the ordinance after six months. He said staff is suggesting that a review of the ordinance, if passed, take place one year from the recommended implementation date of December 1. A six-month review would fall at the beginning of the next construction season and there would not be enough time to measure its effects. He said staff will be following what occurs in the e Portland area and giving regular status reports to the council. Rega rdi ng the comments by Mr. Rich and the undeveloped lots in the south hills, Mr. Croteau said there are exemptions within the solar access ordinance that address steep slopes and heavily wooded lots. In no case would someone be prohibited from building a structure on a particular lot. Concerning the high cost of slope studies cited by Mr. Iverson, Mr. Croteau said the kind of information required by the building permit is contained on contour maps, which are available to the public. He said he is available to answer questions, although more technical inquiries should be addressed to Les Tumidaj, a private consultant with the Planning Department. Mayor Obie recessed the meeting at 9 p.m. for a short break. Mayor Obie reconvened the meeting at 9:10 p.m. He asked the council if they had any questions for staff. Ms. Ehrman asked Mr. Tumidaj what the difference is between a 3-, 5- or 6- percent slope adjustment. Mr. Tumidaj responded that during discussions about the amendments, home builder representatives sa i d 3-percent slopes are difficult to measure. He said it was decided that slope calculations of 5 percent are an easier increment to work with. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 6 Mayor Obie a s ked the council if they had any comments regarding the amendments. e Mr. Miller expressed his appreciation for the work put in by Mr. Croteau and EWES. In response to statements made during the hearing, Mr. Miller said Eugene is an enlightened community because it has people on both sides of the solar access issue. Enlightenment is not just a property of one side. Mr. Miller said he is bothered that the council is criticized for spending time to try and make something such as solar access workable. He said there needs to be clear understanding of the percentages compiled by EWEB regarding energy loss. The board1s figures are based on 100 percent of the lots being impacted by the ordinance. Reiterating earlier comments, he said 80 percent of the building permits issued are not affected by the ordinance, which changes the actua 1 percentage of lost energy. Mr. Miller said it is his intention to have a solar access ordinance that is workable for the home builders and the people who want to buy those homes. He said it is also the intention of the council to realize the value of solar energy. Mr. Holmer said he found the public hearing testimony compelling on both sides of the issue. He said what the council is considering is the right for every property owner to have solar access. The amendments appear to weaken that right, sa i d Mr. Holmer, who added he intends to vote against the proposed amendments. He said the council should make sure in the future that the right of solar access does not preclude people from doing things that make sense to them. Ms. Wooten said she was also impressed with the testimony. She announced her intention to vote against the amendments with the exception of the slope e adjustment percentage. She appreci ated the comments from those who have entered into solar contracts, but she said those opportunities as they relate to right-of-way acquisitions are different with regard to the sun. Ms. Schue also addressed the issue of solar access agreements. Although such contracts may be feasible between certain parties, she said the real issue is the right of solar access that comes with the structure or individual piece of property. Guaranteeing that access is a function of local government similar to zoning codes and other regulations that bind properties. Ms. Schue said she is generally supportive of the ordinance as it is written. Mr. Bennett asked Mr. Croteau if he was correct in understanding that 80 percent of the lots in new subdivisions need to have north-south orientations. Mr. Croteau said that is correct, although some exceptions have been made for existing street patterns. The reason was so that people in subdivisions developed after January of this year will have an easier time siting their homes than people in lots developed before then. Mr. Bennett asked if the solar setback ordinance is specifically directed at the 20 percent of lots that are not required for a north-south orientation. Mr. Croteau replied that the ordinance is directed at all lots because even perfectly oriented north-south structures are capable of shading adjacent lots if improper siting of the house occurs. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 7 Mr. Bennet reiterated previous comments that there has been useful testimony on both sides of the issue. Because of different construction methods, e raising the minimum structure height two feet will not necessarily have the same impact as raising the solar fence two feet. He said the council should have an ordinance that strikes a balance between solar access protection and home building interests. Mr. Bennett said he plans to support the amendments with the exception of the proposal to raise the solar fence. He said he is also in favor of a one-year review of the local ordinance as well as keeping abreast of solar access regulations in other communities. Ms. Bascom thanked Mr. Miller for his efforts in bringing the two sides together. However, she said she agrees with testimony that supports living in sun verses living in shadows, and will not support the amendments except in one or two cases. Ms. Ehrman asked Mr. Croteau if the one-year review is presently in the ordinance and something the council should vote on. Mr. Croteau said staff is already prepared to conduct a review and it does not need to be included in the ordinance. The council conducted a series of temporary votes for the amendments starting with Section 1. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to change the date of solar access protection from December 21 to January 21. Roll call vote; the motion failed 3:5 with Councilors Rutan, Bennett, and Miller voting aye and Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, Bascom, Schue, and Wooten voting nay. e The council decided to next take a temporary vote of Section 3. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to change the guaranteed height from 24 to 26 feet. Roll call vote; the motion failed 3:5 with Councilors Rutan, Bennett, and Miller voting aye and Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, Bascom, Schue, and Wooten voting nay. The council next voted on Section 4. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to change the height of the solar fence from eight to ten feet. Roll call vote; the motion failed unanimously, 0:8. The council next voted on Section 5. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to change the slope tables to increments of 5 degrees instead of the current 3 degrees. Roll call vote; the motion carried 7:1, with Councilors Ehrman, Bascom, Bennett, Miller, Rutan, Schue, and Wooten voting aye and Councilor Holmer voting nay. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 8 Mr. Holmer explained he voted against the amendment because he thought the council was advised 6 percent was the preferred degree. He asked permission e to change his vote, and Ms. Ehrman agreed. Mayor Obie announced the motion carried with a unanimous vote. The council next voted on Section 6. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to repeal the ordinance adopted by the City Council in October that postponed indefinitely the current revisions. Roll ca 11 vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The council next voted on when to enact the ordinance. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to make the one adopted amendment effective December 1, 1987. Ms. Ehrman asked if implementing the one amendment would make the entire ordinance effective December 1, 1987. Mr. Croteau said that would make effective the existing solar setback requirements that were postponed earlier with the exception of the slope change. Mr. Miller asked if the infill provision will be considered after the other amendments. Mayor Obie responded that it will. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Obie asked Mr. Miller to make a motion regarding the infill issue. Mr. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, to instruct staff e to draft wording that would protect a person1s right to build a house of comparable and compatible design in infill and existing structures so those existing structures would not be adversly affected. Ms. Schue asked for clarification from Mr. Miller about what the staff is being instructed to draft. Mr. Miller said the intent of the motion is to protect a person1s right to build a house similar to the houses in a given area. Ms. Schue stated the issue is a complex one and asked if staff understands what Mr. Miller is asking. Mr. Croteau said the current ordinance already has provisions that allow homes in character with existing subdivisions to be sited. Qualitative language such as IIcomparable and compatiblell is not specifi c enough. He said subdivisions around the city are diverse enough in character that a broad exemption is not necessary. Mr. Bennett said he thought the issue was addressing subdivisions where houses faced either east or west, and where it was difficult to orientate an infill lot any other way. Mr. Croteau responded that the dimension of the lot, in addition to the orientation, is factored into the total solar access of a structure. In cases where the north-south dimension is under 75 feet, the fence restriction is automatically increased to 16 feet. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 9 Mr. Bennett sa i d he wants to be certain the ordi nance does not prevent individuals from constructing a house on smaller infill lots that reflect the e neighborhood character. Mayor Obie said he interprets the motion to mean that staff will return to the council with a proposal the council can then refine. Ms. Bascom said she prefers to address the issue in the ordinance review. She said the council should ask staff to pay attention to the infill issue and observe if it poses problems in the upcoming construction year. Ms. Ehrman agreed with Ms. Bascom's comments, adding it would be impractical to hold a separate public hearing on one exemption. Roll call vote; the vote resulted in a tie 4:4, with Councilors Rutan, Bennett, Holmer, and Miller voting aye, and Councilors Wooten, Ehrman, Schue, and Bascom voting nay. Mayor Obi e voted aye and the motion passed 5:4. Based on the temporary votes, Mr. Croteau introduced the item. CB 3001--An ordinance concerning solar access regulations; amending Sections 9.015, 9.060, 9.510, 9.535, and 9.576 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Ordinance No. 19507; amending Ordinance Nos. 19400, 19401, and 19402; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency. e Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be read a second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously 8:0. Council bill 3001 was read by council bill number only. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously 8:0. The bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19514). III. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW TRAVEL AGENCIES IN GO (GENERAL OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICTS AND GYMNASTIC FACILITIES AND SPORTS CLUBS IN 1-2 (LIGHT MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS CA 87-8) Mr. Croteau introduced the item. He sa i d the Planning Commission is unanimously recommending approval of the code amendments. Mr. Bennet asked City Attorney John Arnold if he had a conflict of interest regarding sports clubs in industrial districts. Mr. Arnold said there was no conflict of interest. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 10 Mayor Obie opened the public hearing. e Bob Levesque, 95000 Springvalley Lane, introduced himself as Director of the nonprofit American Gymnastics Training Center. He said the center is in a difficult situation because it needs a large amount of space to operate, but does not have the funds to pay for a commercial building space. The only place that fits the center's needs for large floor space and high ceilings are industrial areas. He said the center provides athletic activities for 300 children. Mr. Levesque also pointed out the industrial tenants in the area are supportive of the center. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing. CB 3002--An ordinance concerning zoning and permitted uses; amending Sections 9.439, 9.450, and 9.452 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Council bill 3002 was read by council bill number only. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The bill was declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19515). e IV. TARGETED BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Mr. Gleason introduced the item. Jesse Smith, Financial Services Manager with the Development Department, gave a staff report. Mr. Smith said the Community Development Committee desires to expand the economic development activities financed through the Community Development Block Grant. Because of the credit restri ct ions of the Business Development Fund ( BDF), the committee is interested in expanding financial assistance to minorities, disabled individuals, and female heads of households. Mr. Smith said the experience of the committee has shown those categories of individuals often cannot get private financing. The Targeted Business Assistance Program is designed to provide financing to those groups while recognizing the risk of such loans. He said the competitive nature of the program would enable the Community Development Div;son to select the best proposals. Mr. Holmer asked if there is a possibility the loans could be collateralized. Mr. Smith responded it is not the intent of the program to seek out collateral, although if collateral is available the program would use it for the loan. Regarding female heads of households, Mr. Holmer asked if there is any attempt to distinguish between those who are better off financially. Mr. Smith said e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 11 ""'-- the committee did address that issue and decided to work with applicants and direct those eligible for the Business Development Fund toward the BDF instead e of the Targeted Business Program. Mr. Miller asked what will prevent the loan program from becoming a grant program. Mr. Smith replied that the division recognizes the risks of the program and is planning to work more closely with the targeted businesses than with the existing business loans. The structure of the program will include work with consulting agencies, and program participants will work closely with the Business Assistance Team on an ongoing basis. Mr. Bennett asked if there have been many applications that have not qualified for the underwriting criteria of the program. Mr. Smith said 17 percent of all applications submitted in the last fiscal year were from mi nori ty businesses, and none received funding. Mayor Obie said he is cautious about the program. He said he spoke with the administrator of a similar program in Portland, who said the assistance project eventually evolved into a grant program. Mr. Smith stated it is important to realize the potential financial losses of the program. He said there is also a risk of a backlash in public perception. Mayor Obie said he is inclined to have the program start with its $75,000 in first-year funds, and then report back to the council. Mr. Smith pointed out there will be presentations before the Community Development Committee after the first three Request For Proposals are submitted. He said the committee will hear descriptions of each loan package and be provided with an ongoing e report of the program. Responding to a question from Mayor Obie, Mr. Smith said approval of the first yearls funding only would not prevent implementation of the program. Mr. Miller clarified earlier statements and said funding for the first year, 1988-89, is $100,000. Money is being reapportioned this year to begin a partial program. He said the intent of the program is to proceed cautiously with the realization that the money is budgeted for loans and not grants. Ms. Wooten said if the council opts for a one-year program, she would like to include educational scholarships and consulting services. Mr. Smith said the money earmarked for consulting services is not available until the start of fiscal year 1988-89. Ms. Wooten congratulated Mr. Smith and the staff of the Development Department and said she is supportive of the proposal. However, she said the council should have the opportunity to repeal the program through the monitoring activity of both the council and the Community Development Committee. Mr. Rutan said he is also supportive of a motion to approve a first year budget. He said a monitoring process would be difficult to accomplish given the council's busy agenda. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 12 Ms. Ehrman said she understands the reasoning behind a one-year review of the program, but supports a three-year proposal to demonstrate the council's long- e term commitment to the business community and economic development. Mr. Miller said he supported a three-year program, and pointed out the council can still reject the program before that time if it proves unsuccessful. Ms. Schue said she also favors a three-year program, and remi nded other councilors there is already a process in place whereby the council receives annual reports on the money. Mr. Holmer indicated the proposal before the council is for a permanent program with no termination date. However, the proposal for a Community Block Grant Three-Year Plan does contain an annual review where the council can evaluate the status of the Targeted Business Assistance Program. He said he is also supportive of a long-term target program. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the CDBG-funded Targeted Business Assistance Program. Ro 11 call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. V. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT THREE-YEAR PLAN Mr. Gleason introduced the item. Linda Dawson, Community Development Division, gave the staff report. Ms. Dawson said the plan allocates over $6 million in Community Development Block Grant funds over the next three years. The financial sources for the funds include entitlement monies that are e estimated at over $1 million annually, income from the revolving loan funds, carryover monies, and funds unallocated in the current three-year plan. All the major current programs are maintained in the new plan. The Targeted Business Assistance Program and a Housing Acquisition Program are established in the new plan. Ms. Dawson said social service projects will continue to be selected through the Joint Social Service Fund and will cover both operations and capital projects. Responding to a question from Mayor Obie, Ms. Dawson said the new plan calls for maintaining the existing funding levels for Housing & Investment Property Redevelopment. She said the new plan is not a significant change in the percentages of new dollars allocated to program areas. Funding for social services has also not significantly changed. However, funding for the Capital Improvement Program has fluctuated between 7 and 10 percent. Responding to other questions from Mayor Obie, Ms. Dawson said the proposed plan shows an increase in capital improvement funding in the second year due to specific projects already identified. She said the proposed plan includes a reduction in new funds for the Business Development Fund (BDF), but that this fund will be able to sustain itself. The method for determining if the program will support itself is based on income figures from the existing loans and projections for future loans including an estimated loss rate, she said. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 13 - Mayor Obie asked why the current program funds are at the level they are. Mr. Smith replied the projections are made on existing staff capacities of how e many loans the division can make based on the interest rate charged and loan payback schedules. When funding is reduced to $150,000, the BDF is capitalized as was the original program goal of the council. In response to a question from Mayor Obie, Mr. Smith said the annual cost to administrate a loan program is $149,700. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the Community Development Block Grant Three-Year Plan. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. VI. APPEAL OF INITIATIVE PETITION BALLOT TITLE Mr. Gleason introduced the item. The petitioners of a charter amendment limiting implementation of certain urban renewal plans do not think the title accurately represents the petition and are appealing to the City Council to change the language in the ballot title. City Attorney John Arnold said the task before the council is to determine if the existing ballot title is a "concise and impartial statement of the subject matter and purpose" of the proposed charter amendment. Mr. Arnold said one of the tasks involved in drafting the ballot title was to distinguish it from a second initiative petition about a similar issue. He said this has resulted in the use of slightly different language in the petitions to avoid voter confusion. e In response to questions from Mr. Rutan, and Ms. Wooten, Mr. Arnold reiterated the petition before the council is a second petition that is unrelated to a previous petition submitted to the council. The second petit ion is not intended to replace the first petition which has not been withdrawn, he said. After the council's appeal of the first initiative petition, the people submitting the petition have filed a law suit with Lane County Circuit Court asking the court to draft a new ballot title, according to Mr. Arnold. Because the appeal before the council is a quasi-judicial matter, Mayor Obie asked if councilors have any ex-parte contacts or conflicts of interest. Hearing none, Mayor Obie asked the appellants to state their case. Dan Stotter, 1343 Mill St. , sa i d the rea son for the appea 1 is based on suggestions from several City Council members and the City Attorney who thought the previ ous measure is unclear. He said the measure before councilors now is better than the first, which was based on a similar proposal in Springfield. He reminded councilors not to consider the merit of the measure but to judge whether voters will receive an accurate restatement of the content in the ballot title. Mr. Stotter reviewed three specific problem areas in the ballot title. The first problem is in the title itself where there is no mention of elector approval. He said this fact is crucial to the measure and belongs in the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 14 ~, title. The second problem is in the question where a double negative gives the impression the measure is denying elector approval. He said the use of a e double negative is confusing to voters. The third problem is the use of language such as "limiting, prevent, and prohibit" which connote a bias to the voters. He reminded the council that the State has a superceding clause that requires ballot questions to plainly state the purpose of the measure. Richard Gold, 1486 E. 25th Avenue, Apt. B, said use of the word "limiting" in the measure caption without qualification misrepresents the breadth of the proposed legislation. Because the caption fails to indicate which specific limitation is proposed by the legislation, the caption fails to fairly state the measure's purpose. Mr. Gold suggested the wording be changed to state the charter amendment "conditions" implementation of certain urban renewal plans. He submitted written testimony from Steve Andresen, 2640 University, also asking the council to revise the ballot measure. Torn Lester, 235 E. 2nd, Apt. 1, said he has concerns about the clarity of the question. The average citizen would have difficulty understanding in particular the sentence that starts with "Shall Eugene's charter..., II he said. Mr. Lester suggested the phrase "without electoral approval" be changed to "upon electoral approva 1" to gi ve the correct intent of the measure. In addition, the word "prevent" in the first sentence gives the wrong impression the legislation is designed to prohibit urban renewal plans. Mayor Obie closed the public hearing and asked the City Attorney to respond. Mr. Arnold said the issue is fairness to voters. Reiterating comments he made before the council October 21, Mr. Arnold said State statutes authorize the e City to implement urban renewal plans without a vote. He said the purpose of the initiative is to limit that authority, which is why the word "limit" appears in the ballot title. Mr. Arnold said State law and the Ci ty code a 1 ready a 11 ow, through the referendum process, voter approval of ordinances that adopt urban renewal plans. He said the appellants are attempting to characterize only half of the initiative's purpose as subjected to voter approval. The existing ballot title attempts to give the public all of the information about the intent of the ballot title, he said. Mr. Arnold disputed the claim of a double negative in the ballot title. He acknowl edged the 1 anguage may be interpreted as ambiguous and suggested inserting a comma in the question between the words "areas" and "without" to make it clear the phrase "without voter approval" applies to all the words that precede it. He said the words "prohibit, prevent, and limit" are not biased but intended to describe the effect of the initiative with regard to existing laws. He added the words are common in ballot titles and have been used several times before in City ballot measures. Mayor Obie asked the appellants for rebuttal. Mr. Stotter pointed out that although "limit" is a legal term of art, State law requires a plain statement of the purpose of the measure and asked the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 15 ~~ council to consider the voters ability to understand the measure. Regarding Mr. Arnold's contention the petitioners are presenting only half the issue, e Mr. Stotter said petitioners intentionally used language adverse to their position to present a balanced perspective. He asked the council again to disassociate themselves from the content of the measure and vote on the fairness of the ballot title. Mayor Obie asked the council for questions. In response to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Arnold said the term "ballot title" refers to the title itself, the question, and the explanation. Mayor Obie asked for comments from the council. Ms. Ehrman said looking individually at the title, the question, and the explanation, it is possible to see a bias. However, reading the three sections as one measure, she said it is clear what the intent of the petition is. Ms. Wooten said she is in agreement with Ms. Ehrman, although she does have some concerns about the clarity of the measure. She said she would like additional recommendations from Mr. Arnold on ways to improve the wording of the measure. Ms. Bascom told the appellants City voters deserve more credit than they are being given and will be able to understand the intent of the measure. Mr. Rutan said he agrees with the appellants in that the title and the e question are not well phrased. He said he did not understand the measure after a first reading and said the question in particular should be re-worded to make it more understandable. Mr. Rutan said he would like to refer the question back to the City Attorney for more clarification and have the title changed for content. Mr. Holmer said he is in agreement with all that has been stated and suggested the question be reworded. However, he said he plans to vote to deny the appeal on the basis that voters will be able to understand the broad intent of the measure. Mayor Obie asked Mr. Gleason if the petition would impact development of the Riverfront project into the downtown area. Mr. Gleason said staff is not sure, although certain urban renewal plans and bonds will be affected. Mr. Arnold said the high number of ambiguities contained in the petition means a 1 i ke 1 y outcome is litigation, which would impede development of the Riverfront project. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the City Council deny the appeal. Roll call vote; the motion passed 6:2 with Councilors Ehrman, Holmer, Bascom, Bennett, Miller, and Schue, voting aye and Councilors Wooten and Rutan vot i ng nay. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 16 - VII. FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DATED NOVEMBER 9, 1987, CONCERNING IMPROVEMENTS TO ROOSEVELT BOULEVARD e Mr. Gleason introduced the item. He said both sides have agreed that no sidewalk should be constructed, until development is underway. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the findings of the Hearings Official dated November 9, 1987, and the project on Roosevelt Boulevard from Maple Street to Highway 99 North. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. VIII. FINDINGS OF THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL DATED NOVEMBER 5, 1987, AND ORDINANCES LEVYING ASSESSMENTS (CONTRACTS 86-10, 86-22, 85-23, AND 86-02). Mr. Gleason introduced the item. CB 3003--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewer-- Knoop Lane from Mayfair to River Road and River Road from Park Avenue to Thomason Street (Contract #86-10). CB 3004--An ordinance levying assessments for paving of alley from 13th Avenue to 14th Avenue between High and Pearl streets (Contract #86-22). CB 3005--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewers e on Lone Oak Drive from Division Avenue pump station to Zona Avenue (Contract #85-23). CB 3006--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewers to serve Sterling Drive from Silver Lane to Sterling Drive, Escalante Street from Silver Lane to Sterling Drive, cul-de-sac at Silver Lea Court and cul-de-sac north of Silver Lane between Escalante Street and Sterling Drive (Contract #86-02). Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to adopt the Hearings Official findings of November 5, 1987, for Contracts 86-10, 86-22, 85-23, and 86-02, and that the bills be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. Council bills 3003, 3004, 3005, and 3006 were read the second time by council bill numbers only. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 17 motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The bills were declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19516 (CB 3003); Ordinance e No. 19517 (CB 3004); Ordinance No. 19518 (CB 3005); and Ordinance No. 19519 (CB 3006)). IX. FINDINGS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL DATED NOVEMBER 9, 1987, AND ORDINANCES LEVYING ASSESSMENTS (CONTRACTS 85-24 AND 86-07). Mr. Gleason introduced the item. CB 3007--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and storm sewers in Eugene Park Place (Contract #85-24). CB 3008--An ordinance levying assessments for paving of Royal Avenue from 600 feet west of Candlelight Drive to Terry Street (Contract #86-07). Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to adopt the Hearings Official findings of November 9, 1987, and that the bills be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously 8:0. Council bills 3007 and 3008 were read the second time by council bill numbers only. e Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. The bills were declared passed (and became Ordinance No. 19520 (CB 3007); and Ordinance No. 19521 (CB 3008)). X. APPOINTMENTS: CONSIDERATION OF NOMINATIONS TO THE AIRPORT COMMISSION, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE, LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER COMMISSION, METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND THE PERFORMING ARTS COMMISSION. Mr. Gleason introduced the item. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to appoint the Mayor1s nominations to various City boards and commissions as outlined in the staff memorandum. Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 8:0. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 18 ~ AIRPORT e Louise Wicks, 1180 E. 22nd Avenue, Eugene 97403, for a second term ending December 31, 1991. Brian Bronson, 3920 Spring Boulevard, Eugene 97403, for a term ending December 31, 1991. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE John Bennett, 3960 Hilyard, Eugene 97405, for a second term, representing the housing industry for a term ending December 31, 1990. Katherine Murdoch, 1040 West 16th Avenue, Eugene 97402, for a second term, representing the neighborhood organizations for a term ending December 31, 1990. Ruben Cota, 2580 McMillan, Eugene 97405, for a second term, representing the minority community for a term ending December 31, 1990. ECONOMIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dave Pedersen, 2261 University, Eugene 97403, for a 12- to 18-month term or until project completion. Dave Williams, 2183 Essex Lane, Eugene 97403, for a 12- to 18-month term or until project completion. e LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Peggy Mulder, 970 East 44th Avenue, Eugene 97405, for reappointment with a term ending December 31, 1991. Nancy Kibbey, 2130 Greenview, Eugene 97401, for a term ending December 31, 1991. METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER COMMISSION Stephen Duffy, 2372 Rockwood, Eugene 97405, for a second term ending December 31, 1990. METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE Janice Goldberg, 3715 Donald, Eugene 97405, to complete an unexpired term ending June 30, 1988. PERFORMING ARTS COMMISSION Jennifer King, 2565 Agate Street, Eugene 97403, for a second term ending December 31, 1991. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 16, 1987 Page 19 Michael Fox, 330 North Adams Street, Eugene 97402, for a second term ending December 31, 1991. e XI. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 16, 1987; SEPTEMBER 21, 1987; SEPTEMBER 23, 1987; DINNER/WORK SESSION AND MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 1987; LUNCH/WORK SESSION OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1987; OCTOBER 12, 1987; MEETING AND JOINT MEETING OF OCTOBER 14, 1987. Mr. Gleason introduced the item. Ms. Ehrman moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to approve the City Council meeting minutes of September 16, 1987; September 23, 1987; September 28, 1987; September 30, 1987; October 12, 1987; and October 14, 1987. Roll call vote; The motion carried 8:0:1 with Ms. Ehrman abstaining. Mayor Obie adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. to November 18, 1987. R~s ect~~ ;;"' ~ ~.' , / /.. .. Mich(.l' D. Gleas City Manager (Recorded by Todd Nissen) ~ mncc1116 e MINUTES--Eugene Ci ty Counci 1 November 16, 1987 Page 20