Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/15/1978 Meeting - M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 15, 1978 Adjourned meeting from February 13, 1978, of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 11:30 a.m. on February 15, 1978, at Kingls Table, Oakway Mall, with the following Council members present: D.W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Tom Williams, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I. Items from Mayor and Council A. Appointment to Plumbing Board--Mayor suggested appointment ment of Warner Dallas, 110 Green Acres Road, for a term ending 1/1/79. Council will take action February 22. B. Minorities Commission--Letter of resignation received from Kathy Andrieu. The first alternate, Monroe Jones, 2555 Roosevelt Boulevard, is willing to serve. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Delay, to accept the resig- nation and appoint Monroe Jones for a term ending 1/1/79. e Mr. Haws mentioned in the process of reviewing applications for the Human Rights Commissions, Mr. Jones' application was one of the best he had seen. He requested a copy of the application be sent to the entire Council. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. C. Metro Area Planning Advisory Committee (MAPAC)--Manager noted the receipt of two letters of resignation: Jim Dunn for a term ending 6/30/80; and Duane Shears, for a term ending 6/30/78. Council President and Vice President will make recommendations to Council for appointments. Twelve applications are on file, but only one had listed MAPAC as first choice. It was consensus of Council to advertise for the two vacancies to Friday, March 3, 5:00 p.m. II. Update of Field Burning Issue Before the presentation by City Attorney and Terry Smith, Technical Analyst, Mayor Keller made a statement regarding field burning. He reaffirmed the fact that any burning over 50,000 acres is in violation of federal law unless the EPA approves the change. Since revision of the State Clean Air Plan can1t be accomplished in time to meet federal deadlines, the EPA is suggesting that the state develop a one-year control strategy to lessen pollution in the Willamette Valley during the summer and fall of 1978. This interim control strategy is to be developed by all interested parties, with Eugene participating. The interim strategy will - 2/15/78--1 101. r be embodied in a formal agreement between the EPA and DEQ. A preview of the City's study of the issue will be given at today's meeting, with the full report to be presented at the EPA hearing February 24. He said the stand of the City of Eugene today is that the main consider- tilt ation must be concern for the health of our citizens. While burning acreage is clearly a factor, the nature and quantity of burning pollutants are also real issues. Stan Long, City Attorney, said this was the third periodic update report regarding the Clean Air Act. It has been the City's position that the Federal Clean Air Act set standards for pollution and field burning. Primary standards are designed to assure human health; secondary standards are to ensure the overall pure air. Sometimes the Eugene air has been in violation of the standards, noting one source to be field burning. The City had asked the EPA to issue notice of violation on field burning and to reject state amendments because they were not justified. Both have occurred. For the City to continue to take a sound position, it has employed an environmental analyst, Terry Smith, to provide technical data. The full technical report on field burning will be presented February 24 at a state hearing on burning rules for next year. Mr. Smith will review that report for Council today. Terry Smith said the summary of data collected indicated four proposi- tions: 1) people suffer adverse health effects due to smoke intrusions during the field burning season; 2) the particulate intrusion from field burning is much greater than previously estimated; 3) that par- ticulate intrusion from field burning is at least as great as that from slash burning; and 4) there are practical alternatives for re- ducing the impact of field burning in Eugene. e Mr. Smith said, in regard to the health effects during the field burning season, Eugene's air quality is dirtier than defined by the Clean Air Act and exceeds what is allowable by the secondary standards. In addition, Eugene's air was dirtier than the primary standards for photochemical oxidants. He said since Eugene's air has more ozone, it is a given fact there will be some kind of health effects. Present data on the health effects of suspended particulates indicates that the annual standard is protective of the public's health and includes a small safety factor. However, current findings indicate that the present 24-hour standard may not adequately protect the public's health. Mr. Smith had re-examined a 1977 EPA study, in which EPA determined field burning had very small but definite impact on particulates in the Eugene area during 1974 to 1976. Mr. Smith found the study underestimated the impact to Eugene by about 300 percent. He said many reasons for the underestimation could be enumerated, with one being the inappropriate methods of collecting particulates. He had used three different methods to estimate the impact of field burning on Eugene. He said it reaffirmed the fact that field burning does contribute 2/15/78--2 - 103 I . more to particulates in Eugene.s air than was previously estimated, which results in Eugene's violation of secondary standards. e Continuing, Mr. Smith said these estimates had allowed the determi- nation that field burning contributes to pollutants in the air about as much as slash burning. He said if the concentration of high par- ticulates caused by field burning create air pollution problems, it follows that other pollutants in smoke will create have some concern. Field burning releases small amounts of carcinogens called poly-cyclic organic materials. It is not known at this time if the ground level concentrations of these materials pose any serious health hazard. A preliminary evaluation of these problems has indicated cause for concern and the need for further research. . Mr. Smith said there were several ways in which emission from field burning smoke could be reduced: 1) reduce acreage burned; 2) schedule burning to take advantage of good weather; and 3) use an alternate year burning plan. He cited an example in California in which rice field growers had used two techniques to reduce air pollutants: 1) moisture content regulations (the drier the straw, the less the pollutants in the air); and 2) backfiring (where the fire advances into the wind). Mr. Smith then showed slides of the effects of these two techniques, which considerably reduce the pollutants in the air. He said one problem with the use of backfiring was that it was a slow process and pollutants do not rise as rapidly above ground. A modifi- cation technique called strip lighting would allow the fields to burn more rapidly. He cautioned Council, while there is no reason to expect these methods would not be successful in Oregon, they had never been used extensively in the state. Also, regarding carcino- gens, one piece of evidence indicated the use of backfiring substan- tially increases the emission of such carcinogens. In conclusion, Mr. Smith said Eugene field burning pollutants were high enough that certain adverse health effects should be expected to be encountered. Field burning smoke is especially potent in causing these health effects. Field burning contributes about the same amount of pollutants as slash burning. There are practical methods that can be used to reduce these effects. Manager said this information will be given to the DEQ and others involved. Staff will continue pursuing the matter with the hope of reducing acreage burned and putting into practice other techniques. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley to reaffirm the Council.s desire to keep Eugene's environment safe and pleasant for its inhabitants; and to advocate the implementation of new burning techniques and urge that adequate monitoring, commencing immedia- tely, be included in any DEQ/EPA agreement; and commended staff for its intensive in-depth progress that has been made on this issue. Motion carried unanimously. e 2/15/78--3 I 0.... l Mr. Lo~g indicated the staff monitor the developments in the agreement and inform Council if there is any deviation that would not be acceptable to the City. - Mr. Obie wondered if funds should be allocated to provide monitoring to allow good standards and useful information for the City during the next season. Assistant Manager said it might be useful to wait until the agreement has been developed with DEQ and EPA. Staff did not feel it appropriate to undertake that financial burden at this time. Adequate and critical monitoring throughout the entire metro area should be done, not just in Eugene. III. Panhandle Policy: Procedures for Review Manager's memo dated February 9, Planning Department memo dated January 10, and Willakenzie Neighborhood Association letter dated November 23, 1977 distributed to Council. Manager said Council should address the procedures it wishes to take for review of panhandle policy. The memo outlines some suggestions that might be followed. He suggested a tour of panhandle lots to view examples. The question would then became one of whether or not Council should hold a hearing, refer the matter to the Planning Commission, or possibly await a report from the Joint Housing Com- mittee which is considering many approaches to meeting the goals of com- pact urban growth and density. The Planning Commission schedule would allow a possible discussion date in April. The Joint Housing Committee report may not be forthcoming for some time. Mr. Obie said JHC was trying to review the process of how to develop higher density relative to the City's goals. The Panhandle Policy is only one on a list of perhaps 15 ~ items. His subjective feeling was that City Council would not receive any recommendation from JHC on the panhandle policy. He also remembered Council had referred the matter back to the Planning Commission on two different occasions with no changes made. He felt if Council wanted to take some actions on the issue, it would either have to do so by directive to the Plannin~ Commission or by preparing its own ordinance. Mr. Williams said this is an issue that is unsolvable. In looking at the future 25 years, he noted it may be necessary for people to be closer to places of employment and services (due to gas and energy shortages). Also, there was some concern of increasing the utilization of land. Further, he said it seemed no one wanted the Panhandle Lot Policy in his own neighborhood. If Council wished to make some change in the policy, it should really consider the issue of looking 25 years ahead. In that light, he felt Council had no choice but to continue its panhandle po 1 i cy . Hr. Obie wondered if Council wanted either to listen a great deal more or to change the policy. He had experienced "25 years down the road" in L.A. recently. He noted panhandles would not be any more attractive than subdivisions that are 30 miles out of the city. Relative to energy conservation, he felt the panhandle policy was providing one form, by proper planning and grouping of housing, employment, and services. e 2/15178--4 105 - If planning is not done on that basis, he felt density would have to be increased or city limits expanded. His position was either to listen more or to make a change in the policy. Mr. Hamel felt the Panhandle Policy depended on the terrain and the situation. He said there were areas in the city that were well planned with large lots and that was the reason people had settled in those areas. However, the situation now is occurring where people are sell- ing those homes and new owners want to panhandle lots. He said if anyone wanted to drive through Ward 5, they would see a very high den- sity of homes, condominiums, and apartments. His position was to listen to more testimony and change the policy. Elane Roccio, 2483 Blackburn, was opposed to the Panhandle Policy. She requested Council consider turning the process around and allowing the neighbors of any homeowner (who wanted to panhandle) the right to purchase the property for their own use. William Cooley, 2285 Sandy Drive, represented the Willakenzie Neighbor- hood Association. He urged a public hearing on the issue for review of the Panhandle Policy. He said the Policy was especially difficult when it was applied to older, established neighborhoods. The Association has been on record for over two years as being opposed to the Panhandle Policy, and he felt there might be other associations in the city who wished to be heard at a public hearing. The Panhandle Policy in estab- lished areas resulted in lowering of values and a harmful effect to the neighborhood. However, he said the compact issue was a difficult one to quarrel with. e Bill Kirkpatrick, 2230 Sandy Drive, was a past vice president of the Willakenzie Neighborhood Association. He said when the Policy was adopted in 1976, there was no evidence as to its effects to allow comment. However, since that time, the Panhandle Policy has created opposition in especially the Willakenzie area. He felt Council should take a look at the Policy, noting it had not been popular in his area. He hoped a public hearing would be held on just this issue, and not be combined with another meeting. He said Mr. Cooley had indicated the neighborhood association was opposed to the Policy. It did not oppose the policy in total, but only as it impacted established residential neighborhoods. He said he would like to see some safeguards for established neighborhoods. Mr. Delay agreed this was a difficult issue. He felt people needed a better understanding of the purpose of the pOlicy. He commented on the expressed fear that if one panhandle lot is approved in one neighborhood, it would open up many more panhandle lots in the same area. He felt that was the purpose of the Policy, to increase urban density. The purpose of a whole set of City policies is to try to increase urban density. He felt addressing the panhandle issue in a comprehensive way through the updating of the 1990 Plan would be more appropriate than isolating it as a single issue. He said there should be an attempt to get all e 2/15/78--5 IO~ people to share the responsibility in reducing the demands and costs of city government growing too fast and in peripheral areas. He felt as elected public officials, the Council had to address the general public good. He sugge~ted that neighborhoods enter into private cove- nants and agreements to protect their neighborhoods if they so wished. However, he felt the City should not start changing its overall com- prehensive planning for the protection of particular individuals. - Mr. Cooley suggested if Council were going to review the panhandle policy, that it declare a moratorium until that review is completed. Mr. Lieuallen felt it was a density issue and not a specific considera- tion for the Willakenzie area. He noted in some parts of town, such as the central core area, the density problem had been addressed and accepted, whereas other parts of town were now just becoming aware of it. He said in appeals on the panhandle policy, he had heard that some were not opposed to the policy in general, but they would prefer the pOlicy to apply only to the central area or away from their particular neighborhoods. He said the central core area faced the same problem of wanting it to be attractive and a decent place to live. He felt any review undertaken by Council should address the problems of making the areas attractive, solving traffic problems, but not throw the panhandle policy out. He said if the citizens did not want density to increase, the ultimate answer would be to have no growth in the City. He felt there was no justifica- tion for people saying the policy should occur in any place but their own neighborhoods. Mr. Obie felt there should be some alternatives to the policy, noting ~ the people who are most highly impacted are the people next door to a ,., panhandle lot. He wanted to look at potential alternatives. Ms. Smith noted a tour would be most helpful for Council and that a review should be undertaken. Mr. Haws did not see anything wrong with the panhandle policy as such, as it seems to be an acceptable land-use tool. However, he did not feel it to be acceptable at this time, as people simply do not want it. He was not sure he was prepared to continue supporting the policy. However, if Council decided to discontinue the panhandle policy, then it should address itself to the consequences which might result in annexation and higher density elsewhere. He said the public should be made aware that there would have to be a trade-off. He suggested perhaps the policy could be modified to apply only to new areas or those not now surrounded by other houses. He requested staff information on this modification. He expressed concern in areas where panhandle policy had been in existence for some time, noting there are many people moving from those areas as they find them unsuitable for living. Also he requested staff to respond if Council decides to change the panhandle policy, what could be done to those areas already adversely affected by the policy. He also requested more information from the staff regarding the assessment policy on pan- handle lots. He expressed interest in a public hearing on the issue, saying he would also like staff input as to how to manage the land-use technique. e 2/15/78--6 ,: 101 - Mayor Keller felt it was the Council IS main job to be responsive to the citizens in the community. He said the same people had been requesting review of the policy. He also reminded Council as it passes new laws, if they do not work they can be modified, adjusted, or discontinued. He felt the public was asking for more review of the panhandle policy and would like to be heard in a public hearing situation. He felt Council had a certain responsibility to review and have staff input at that time, as well as pursuing alternatives to the policy. Mr. Haws did not feel he was ready for a public hearing at this time, but wished more information from staff regarding the issues he had raised. Mr. Delay suggested scheduling a tour of panhandle lots followed by a Council work session and the staff presentation at that time. Council then would have more information with which to make a determination on the issue. Ms. Smith noted there were at least two or three appeals coming to Council on panhandle policies and she felt it important for Council to determine what it is going to do with regard to the policy, or work within the policy already established. She felt a public hearing would be helpful in terms of allowing those persons to speak to the panhandle issue and also to the increased-density issue. e Mr. Obie felt it important to hold a public hearing at some point on the issue as it would allow intelligent feedback that would not necessarily be reactive to the panhandle policy issue in one particular neighborhood. He especially wanted to have information from people living next door to panhandle lots as to what they feel could be done to improve the policy. He suggested staff conduct a survey and talk to those people. Manager said a tour would be scheduled Wednesday, March 8, with a work session to follow, and a decision at that time when a public hearing should take place. Glen Purdy, 2490 Lariat, requested that a lay committee be allowed to work with the City staff in conducting a survey. Mayor Keller suggested perhaps that could be done by the Council Assistants. Assistant Manager noted the Council Assistants were to deal with individual desires of individual Councilors and not do the duties for existing staff. Mr. Haws felt it would not be a good idea to combine the citizen committee with the staff and suggested the citizens could form its own committee to give input at a public hearing. Mr. Purdy said it was hard to obtain the available data as the staff had the expertise and access to that data. Mr. Lieuallen requested clarification as Mr. Purdy had said he could collect data in a survey and yet had said he did not have the data. Mr. Purdy responded his suggestion was to use citizens to conduct a survey of persons who had been affected by panhandle lots. Mr. Haws felt staff would be willing to provide any information to citizens as they wished. He said if a survey were going to be done, it would have to have some basis, which would take some time and money. He was not sure that was necessary. - 2/15/78--7 108 Mr. Obie questioned what alternatives there might be to the issue. Manager said Council would have to be more specific as there may be alternatives to specific provisions of the present policy, such as lot area dimensions, driveway widths, etc. He said a street assessment study was underway, as well as the screeni ng of dri veways. He noted there were a whole range of alternatives that could be explored. Mr. Bradley felt it important to refine the policy and suggested perhaps certain neighborhoods could be exempt from the policy if they were to meet certain criteria. The panhandle policy possibly could apply to certain subdivisions created after a certain date. Ms. Smith expressed concern regarding Mr. Purdy's request, and hoped staff would be available to meet with citizens who are interested. Mr. Obie referred to the use of Council Aides, and requested a copy of the suggested procedures for their use in matters such as these. Mayor Keller summed up the discussion by saying there would be a Council tour on March 8, with a work session at that time, with a report back from staff as to alternatives for the panhandle policy. IV. Election Ordinance Re: Penalty Section Memo and ordinance distributed. Manager said this correction had been requested by a Councilor, and noted the inclusion of the word "knowingly" to Sections 1 and 7 that would provide that violations in all provisions of Section 2.988 become fraudul ent. C. B. 1607--Concerning elections; amending subsections (1) and (7) of Section 2.988 and Subsection (1) of Section 2.1990 of Code, and declaring an emergency was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present re- questing it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18120. V. Highway 99 Improvement Project: Roosevelt to Barger Memo from Department of Public Works dated January 23, 1978, distributed. Manager said the staff was requesting Council delay for the time being the Highway 99 improvement project. The proposed dropping of the project 2/15/78--8 lO<t - e -- - would not delay the installation of a signal at the intersection of Barger Drive and Highway 99, however. The reasons for the staff's recommendation were practical economics in that the State refused to fund a major portion for the improvement and the City does not have the funding to do so, either. Costs have doubled in the time since the project was proposed, and the City cannot divert another $800,000 to this project. Staff feels the State should fund approximately 90 percent of the project, rather than the proposed 15 percent. In response to a question from Mr. Haws, Don Allen said there are dif- ferent joint-funding programs generally involving Federal, State, and local funding contributions. He said, however, this was a different case in that no other situation exists where the adjacent property owners were to be assessed for a State-owned project. This is a State facility, not a City one, and thus the reason for recommending dropping the project. He expressed thanks to City Council for its efforts in the project, and said the staff would continue to hold this project as a high priority for State funding. The traffic signal at Barger Drive will be bid in May, with a 220-day completion date. He said the City support of the two-cent gas tax would help the State find funds for such projects. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to withdraw from the joint venture of the Highway 99 improvement project. e Mr. Haws was concerned over bike and pedestrian access. Mr. Allen said regarding those two issues, there might be an upgrading of street light- ing, and the State may have to do an overlay project in the interim. If tax monies were available, the project may be done in 1982. However, at this time, Mr. Allen said there were no plans for major construction for sidewalks and bikeways. Mr. Haws wondered if there was anything that could be done temporarily to make the area safer for pedestrians. Mr. Allen replied staff could make that recommendation known to the State. Mr. Lieuallen supported Mr. Haws' concern regarding bikes and pedestrians and felt it would be better to have some temporary solution. Mr. Allen replied the street lighting would help somewhat. Mr. Bradley said he could not support the motion, because he felt the City to be responsible for improvements for Eugene citizens' safety and for the aesthetic value of the area. He felt the improvements should be done by the City because of the existing hazards and need for improvement, even though it might be precedent-setting. Mr. Hamel said at the last public hearing on the issue, most people with businesses and those living in the area were not in favor of the highway being changed in any way. He said no one spoke in favor of the improve- ments except the staff. Mr. Obie agreed he would like to see the area developed and improved, but questioned Mr. Bradley as to how it might be financed. Mr. Bradley replied with whatever funds were available at the State level, combined with assessment and general fund or perhaps a bond issue. He reiterated - 2/15/78--9 110 there was a demonstrated need and the City should be able to come up with the money by exploring every possibility. Mayor Keller said he felt the Council had gone on record as being in ~ favor of the improvement project, but the financing vehicle had been eliminated. He said there is very little State money allocated to Eugene. He recognized citizens of the City lived there and felt Council and the City should be talking to the Department of Trans- portation to take care of this State. problem. He felt there would be very little support in the community to spend $1.7 million for a small portion of the highway. Mr. Allen said the total figure to be paid by the City would be $1.8 million with that figure increasing weekly due to inflation costs. He also said Federal funding had been sought and that was not available. Mr. Bradley again said he felt the City had an obligation to the citi- zens who lived there and should pursue the project. He noted at the public hearing, the ABC were in support of the project. The only adverse comments heard were from property owners because of assess- ments that would accrue to them. Mr. Delay said in going back to the root of the problem, it was a shock to find that the State1s six-year plan had dropped the Highway 99 pro- ject. He noted the City pays taxes and there seemed to be some problem of the State facing up to its responsibilities. He felt it necessary that Council and community keep continued pressure on the State to face up to its responsibilities, as the City simply cannot pay for those kinds of projects. He did not support the idea of local funds being used, but did support the idea that pressure be mounted at the State level, noting that there are real hazards and a need for improvement in that area. Ms. Smith supported Mr. Delay.s remarks. Mr. Allen said he wanted to make a correction for Council in that the money that was allocated was a local determination left up to the community through L-COG in a process of pub1ic hearing. The bond issue funds were allocated from the state, and the City received only $290,000 for this project. He said there are other sources of State funding and the staff is making demands on the State for funding of this project. However, the State could not be blamed for the little amount of money allocated for this project, as it was a local determination. e Mr. Williams noted there was an opinion with the Highway Division that Eugene had said it did not want any roads because of the Freeway Amendment. He said one of the costs of that attitude is that the kind of problem facing the Council today. City Manager noted staff and Mayor were making some inroads to the Department of Transportation in that respect. The six-year plan is in the process of revision with additional funding hopefully coming to Eugene. Mayor Keller said he recognized the initial six-year plan had ignored the demands of the City, and letters had been written and discussions held with State officials, indicating Eugene feels it should have some priority. He said that process would continue. 2/15(78--10 e III -- Mr. Bradley wondered if the money that was allocated for the project can all be used for some highway improvement. Mr. Allen said the process would be to go back through L-COG structure and have it reallocated. The staff will have to persuade L-COG that the money should go to that project. He said the project could be cut in half, but it still would not solve the major problem and it would still be an overfunding from the City standpoint. Vote was taken on the motion which carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Bradley and Haws voting no. VI. Non-Resident Membership on Boards and Commissions Memo of January 26, 1978, distributed. Manager said the memo outlined some courses of action Council could take. He said there were certain boards and commissions which are very difficult to staff with qualified residents who wish to serve, such as technical boards. He said what is more at issue was the question whether there are boards and commissions on which certain members have moved out of the City limits and whether or not Council should require them to resign within a reasonable time, as indicated in Alternative 2 of the memo. He said such action would take a Code amendment. e Sue Riemer, 1010 East 18th, and Laverne Edwards, 1260 President, both spoke in favor of Council setting residency in the Eugene city limits to be a requirement for membership on any board or commission of the City. Ms. Riemer requested the Council amend the Code so that upon loss of residency, a member's seat on a board or commission becomes vacant after two months. Ms. Edwards felt it possible to find qual ified applicants within a large city such as Eugene, and requested the issue be resolved quickly to provide the staff with guidelines. Mr. Lieuallen supported the notion because sometimes the boards or commissions have had a say in the spending of taxpayers' money. He noted the Civic Center Commission, in which specific invitations for membership had been addressed to Lane County and Springfield. However, he said Eugene was paying for the entire project out of room tax funds. He felt perhaps in future situations such as this the other jurisdictions be asked to contribute. Thus, he noted there may be situations in the future in which special exemptions would need to be made. Mr. Delay was supportive of Alternative 2 in the memo, and having it applied to the current commissions. He thought there were special committees and commissions, such as the Civic Center Commission, whereby an option should be available. Mr. Williams agreed the tax implication might be an important one to consider. However, he asked Council to also consider the fact that some members of boards and commissions may not live in the City, but do have businesses in Eugene, and therefore do pay taxes. He felt that Council should carefully look at the idea that because someone may move e 2/15/78--11 III across a boundary marker that that would impair their service to Eugene. He felt that idea not to be necessarily valid. If a commission member is making a meaningful contribution to a board or commission, he saw no ~ reason in asking that member to resign in the middle of his term. .., Mr. Bradley thought it a parochial idea to require residency in the City to be a member of a board or commission. He said we are all living in a metropolitan area, and people living outside the City boundaries have just as much interest in what is occurring within Eugene, and those persons should not be discriminated against. He suggested a recommenda- tion that perhaps not more than one or two nonresident persons be allowed on boards or commissions so as not to discriminate against them. He also felt it unfair that as far as Council appointments were concerned, the residency policy held. However, for Mayor appointments, that policy was not in effect. He felt it should apply equally to both. Mr. Delay said the logical conclusion of Mr. Bradley's argument then would be to extend the vote to those who live outside the City limits. He felt when members of boards or commissions moved outside the City, they were no longer citizens of the City, so residents should be chosen to serve. In responding to a question from Mr. Obie regarding residence, Mr. Long said the definition was the physical presence and intent to remain there. Mr. Obie agreed with the concerns expressed and also was concerned about part-time residents, such as University students. Mr. Hamel noted for the last two or three years, he did not know of any real problem of finding people to serve on boards and commissions. He favored Option No. 2. ~ Mr. Haws said if a person chose to move outside the City limits, that was his choice. He felt there were many exceptional and capable people who were willing to serve and there would be no problem in replacing nonresidents with residents. He agreed with Option No.2, with some waiver for special technical boards. Mr. Delay said, in response to Mr. Obie's comment, that while there may be identifiable populations that are transient, it is also true that those are an ongoing part of the community, such as the University student population being a real part of the City, and they should not be treated lightly. Mayor Keller felt the Council had worked very hard in the last three years to get citizens interested in participation. He said the policy supported by Council is to have citizen involvement and they should be residents, if at all possible. As regarding mayoral appointments, he said he has tried diligently to make sure all appointments were residents. He said a problem occurred in that some persons have served for a considerable period of time. Some of those persons have been very diligent and have made considerable contributions to the commissions or boards. In the instance of the Library Board, the members appointed were City residents, but subsequently moved out of the City limits. However, he felt it important the Council consider the appointment of City residents. - 2/15/78--12 . "3 e e e Mr. Delay recognized there would possibly be cases in which it might be ' hard to find qualified residents to serve on technical boards. He sug- gested when a resident member choses to move outside the city, then within 60 days advertise for the position, but allow the member to remain until he/she has been replaced. Mayor Keller felt perhaps as the appointments expire, the nonresidents could then be replaced with residents. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that all current non- residents to serve out their terms be allowed; but from this date any person who moves out of the City will lose membership on a Commission/Board. Mr. Delay moved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that all nonresident members of boards/commissions be terminated at the end of the year. Mayor Keller again raised the question of finding qualified residents to serve on technical boards. Mr. Bradley moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to table the motion and instruct Mayor to appoint a subcommittee to bring a recommendation back for Council consideration. Motion carried with all Councilors present voting aye, except Haws and Hamel voting no. Mr. Williams left the meeting. VII: Amazon Charter Amendment Memo dated January 26, 1978, distributed. Res. No. 2832--Approving and accepting amendment to the Amazon Neighbors Charter was read by number and title. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to adopt the resolu- tion. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. Liquor License Change of Ownership: Pit Stop Tavern (RMB), 2222 Highway 99N from John Langan to Barry and Margaret Dumnich. Manager said all papers were in order, and staff recommended approval. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to forward with approval to OLCC. Motion carried unanimously. 2/15/78--13 11't IX. Public Hearing Re: Street Vacation, Pearl Street, located north of East 40th Avenue (Leahy)(SV 77-9). Unanimously recommended by Planning Commission December 12, 1977. .~ Public hearing was held with no testimony given. C.B. 1608--Authorizing street vacation, that portion of Pearl Street 20 feet in width and running a distance of approximately 280 feet between East 40th Avenue and Oak Street, and retaining public utility easement over west 14 feet was read by Council bill number and title only, there being no Councilor present requesting it be read in full. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, 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. Mr. Bradley questioned the number of street vacations appearing before Council recently. Mr. Saul said there were many reasons for the various vacations, and no general rule to describe all situations. For this particular vacation, a subdivision plat has been received which provides for a widening of Pearl Street north of Oak, and a cul-de-sac off 40th. The area to be vacated is no longer needed. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be ~ approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18121. X. Renewal of Business License as a Wrecker of Motor Vehicles of Salvage Pool O~erators Tieman s Salvage, 2750 Roosevelt Boulevard, owner: W. F. Tieman Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve the license. Motion carried unanimously. XI. Information Report Re: Energy Conservation Held for February 22 meeting. X. Approval of Minutes Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve Council minutes February 8, 1978. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and passed, the meeting was adjourned to F~ 1978. Charles T. Hen~~ City Manager CTH: OT: jm/CM8a18 - 2/15/78--14 , 15