Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1980 Meeting ,;. M I NUT E S Eugene City Council June 18, 1980 e Adjourned meeting of June 11, 1980, 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., June 18, 1980, in the City Council Chamber, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor Eric Haws was absent. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR & COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. HUD Allocations for Lane County--Ms. Schue stated that earlier in the year, the council had sent a letter to HUD protesting their decision to not provide allocations of low-income housing units under the Section 8 program in Lane County, especially after monies had been spent the previous year encouraging developers to apply. The Joint Housing Committee recently received information from HUD that 92 units have now been allocated for Lane County. B. Child Care, Inc., Relocation--Ms. Miller indicated that previously she had asked for a report regarding the facility which had housed Child Care, Inc., day-care center and she has not seen one to date. Mr. e Henry responded that they are still checking into the insurance issue and introduced Ernie Drapela, Parks Department, to provide additional information. Mr. Drapela stated he had discussed this with John Janzen, Risk Management, and found that Child Care, Inc., has found a permanent location at Whiteaker School. The City will proceed with the insurance settlement offer and then put the building up for sale to be relocated. Mr. Lieuallen stated that the arrangement with Whiteaker Community School is not permanent and is not acceptable to either parents or the school. Mr. Drapela stated he would get back with Mr. Janzen. Mr. Lieuallen stated he would appreciate an update. C. Medical Services Task Force--Mr. Delay stated that the Medical Services Task Force met this week and was presented with the preliminary report from Touche~Ross indicating their progress and some of the findings. He encouraged councilors to ask staff for copies of the report and indicated there would be media coverage of this report. The questions of what should occur next and what the service level should be have not been addressed by the task force. They wi 11 beg i n to look at them at the next meeting in two weeks. e 6/18/80--1 I : D. Tri-Agency Future Funding--Mr. Delay stated that in the past it , was felt that options should be kept open for negotiations with Tri-Agency. The City has supported Tri-Agency in the past, but e now it may be necessary to provide notice of termination of the agreement in order to negotiate. Both Springfield and Lane County have decided to make massive reductions in their contributions which will affect the enforcement aspects of the agency. There will be no enforcement for Springfield; Lane County will have only one control person. The City will continue to contribute but it will be impos- sible to continue service at the present level without the financial support of the other jurisdictions. There will be massive disrup- tions of service. The Policy Committee recommended that the three jurisdictions provide notice that they may terminate the contract in six months, effective July 1, 1980. The staff proposal was to do this to reorganize but to not shut down the agency, as some people believed. Because of the requirements of the 190 agreement, notice of termination is required to be given. There is a strong feeling that it is important for each jurisdiction to determine what it wants for an animal control program and how it should operate. No progress can be made until the juris- ~ dictions determine their own involvement. Each jurisdiction could form a subcommittee or task force to determine what it wants in a new or amended cooperative agreement. The Policy Committee decided it would be important to keep communications open. He is not sug- gesting action on this item today, but feels a task force or council subcommittee should be formed to discuss it in the near future. Priority attention should be given to this in order to come up with an e agreement that is more constructive than those in the past. The other two jurisdictions' financial withdrawal is effective July 1, 1980. E. Hotel/Convention Center Contract--Mr. Obie stated he and Mr. Delay had met with the Renewal Agency that morning. The main topic was the , developer's agreement. They will be working with the attorneys to correct deficiencies outlined in the previous memo. He encouraged councilors to let them know if there are other concerns that should be addressed. They wish to have the contract considered at the June 25, 1980, council meeting. Mr. Obie stated he feels it is a waste of time for staff to read material to the council which they have already received and should have read on their own. F. Cancellation of City Council Meetings--Mayor Keller asked for input about cancellng some of the Clty Council meetings in August. Con- sensus was to recess 'between August 18 and 31, thereby canceling the August 20, 25, and 27, 1980, council meetings. G. Contribution to Better Eugene Committee--Mayor Keller stated the Home Builders' Association had given a check to the Better Eugene Committee for dispersement of information regarding the budget. He thanked John Bennett, representative of the Home Builders' Association. e 6/18/80--2 H. Northwest Energy Bill Re~--Mayor Keller stated he would like addltional information a out the Northwest Energy Bill so the council e would be able to take a position. He indicated he would like a report from Greg Page, Technology Coordinator. Mr. Lieuallen asked what the status of the bill was and if council would receive the report before action is taken. Mr. Page responded that the bill is in Congressman Weaver's committee and is in the early stages. Ms. Miller stated it is an important subject and the council should keep in mind that EWEB has been following this very closely and they have taken a position. She feels the council should not duplicate EWEB's work but use the work and effort they have already done. She noted that Congressman Weaver also has a strong position on this. Mayor Keller noted that Mr. Page could use those resources and he would be reporting back to the council on July 2. I. Interviews for the Opening on Eugene Renewal Agency--Mr. Henry noted that Tom Ballantyne's term on the Eugene Renewal Agency will expire July 10. He has indicated a desire to continue with this agency. Mr. Delay stated that, since Mr. Ballantyne has been Chairman and has been very involved in many negotiations, the interview process should be followed with only Mr. Ballantyne being interviewed. Mr. Li eua 11 en stated agreement and noted that Mr. Ballantyne has been very active and productive. Mr. Obi e moved to intervi ew Tom Sa 11 antyne for the open ing on the Eugene Renewal Agency at 11 a.m., June 25, in the McNutt Room. Ms. Smith seconded the motion. Roll call vote; motion carried e unan imous 1 y. J. Introduction--Mr. Henry introduced Chuck Maichel, who is an intern for the summer in the City Manager's Office. K. Elected Officials Coordinating Committee Meeting--Mr. Henry stated that the Elected Offlclals Coordlnating Committee will meet on June 19 at 7 a.m. The previously announced meeting for next week has been canceled. Work will continue following tOday's council meeting on the Metropolitan Plan Update and this will occur at several of the next Wednesday meetings as well. Jim Croteau, Planning, feels it will takOe at least three or four more meetings to get through the text and the committee will also need to discuss the testimony given at the public hearing. The coordinating committee will schedule more meetings for next week at tomorrow's meeting. Springfield is committed to submitting a plan to LCDC by July 1, 1980. Eugene and Lane County probably will not be at a point of submission of this plan by that date; however, Mayor Keller noted there could be a day-long session to get through this material. e 6/18/80--3 II. ROUTINE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL A. Approval of Council Minutes for May 27, 1980, and May 28, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve council e minutes of May 27, 1980, and May 28, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. Ordinance Correction (memo distributed)--Mr. Henry noted that this ordlnance is to amend Ordinance No. 18470 which adopted the amended 1979-80 budget. It was recently discovered that the ordinance con- tained a typographical error that must be corrected before June 30. Section 3 of the ordinance lists the appropriations by program and object group. The very first number, for community safety personnel services, reads on the ordinance "$11,048,560." That number should read "$11,408,560." The total for that program and the other sum- maries in the budget document verify the latter number is correct and this action must be taken to permit the external auditors to audit the City against the correct legal appropriations. CB 2155--An ordinance concerning the budget; amending Ordinance No. 18470; and declaring an emergency Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2155 was read the second time by council bill number only. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18654. I I I. PUBLIC HEARING A. Proposal to Prohibit Smoking in Certain Areas--Interim Report (memo distributed)--Mr. Henry stated that this item deals with a proposal from Councilor Schue relating to a possible no-smoking ordinance and a memo is attached to the agenda. This memo presents the changes that have been made since the last proposal and these changes are under- lined in the memo. Mr. Henry noted there are still several unanswered questions that have been raised. There has not been a definition in this memo of "school buildings." They received a memo from the University regarding Sections 5 and 8, which would be in conflict with the University's policy. They also received information from the McDonald Wholesale Corporation, as well as other comments relating to e 6/18/80--4 the enforcement of this proposal. This memo does not include any dollar amount for penalty and there are questions of enforcement since e there are no City resources for enforcement. This would have to be self-enforcing unless a citizen would wish to take it to court. There are also no City resources available for producing signs. Ms. Schue stated that additional research has been done, as council requested, and now would be the time to modify general ideas in this proposal for a future ordinance. Ms. Smith asked, in regard to the process, since a public hearing is being held today but there is no ordinance, if once the ordinance is drafted there would be another public hearing. Mr. Henry responded that there would be. He noted the issues today are those con- flicts with the University primarily, which address a gathering of 20 people or more. He also asked if this should include private as well as public places and mentioned that since Lane County has facilities, he wondered if the Fairgrounds would be included. Ms. Schue responded that modifications can be made to Section 8. The University handles it with "20 or more," which might be better than "ten or more," which she has proposed.or could be amended to read "20 or fewer." Mr. Obie stated he has concerns with this proposal but would state them following the public hearing. Public hearing was opened. e Speaking in favor: June Ann Konker, 1262 Lawrence Street, Suite 7, stated she works with the Oregon Lung Association and supports the proposal. She has been involved in a statewide initiative measure petition regarding smoking and they are gathering signatures to have the measure placed on the , general ball ot. About one-half of the signatures on the petition are from this area. Speaking against: Arnie Nelson, 3559 Kevington, stated that item 13 in the memo would be detrimental to small businesses. They should have the right to run their businesses as they desire and would prefer to comply with their customers I wishes since that is what is keeping them in business. The proposed ordinance infringes on the rights of small business. He noted that more restaurant owners would have been at this public hearing if it had not been held during the lunch hour which is a very busy time for them. He felt it would have been better to hold this particular public hearing at night. Vernon Thomson, 2818 Sarah Lane, is manager of McDonald Wholesale Company. He feels businesses should have the right to make marketing and planning decisions on their own. With this proposal, if it became an ordinance, there would be a cost to business for establishing e 6/18/80--5 barriers. There is the poss'ibility this could be very costly. He also feels there is a possibility of lawsuits. In his opinion, the majority of private businesses would be against a proposal of this e kind and when the initiative, if it makes it to the general ballot, is before the voters, then it will be obvious what the majority of the citizens want. He feels this should have waited until after the November election. Bob Hasson, 2625 West 10th Place, is a non-smoker who believes smokers have rights too. He indicated that it has not been shown that second- hand smoke is detrimental. Smokers are basically courteous, and in most situations where the two are together there is self-policing already. He noted that even some businesses which are owned by people whose religions do not allow smoking still allow smoking in their establishments because that is the wish of their customers and that is where they receive their income. Arthur Wick, 1170 Highway 99N, stated he feels it is fine that the council does not allow smoking in the Council Chamber, but in his business he feels he should be the one to determine whether smoking should or should not be allowed. He is involved with a bowling alley that has 45,000 tons of air conditioning which provides a clean air flow. He feels this idea should be forgotten. Business owners have the right to make their own decisions. James Jennings, 888 West 2nd Avenue, stated agreement with Mr. Wick. He said the business owner is most directly affected and feels the worst part of this proposal is that it would be unenforceable as an e ordinance. He does not feel it would be cost-effective and suggested that perhaps having a City policy for City-owned buildings would be all right. The council would be acting within their jurisdiction, but not to carry it over "into private industry. He feels the State initiative measure petition that is being circulated, if on the . November election, will be a better indication of what people want. If there are not enough signatures to have it placed on the ballot, then obviously that will indicate what the people want. He noted that more than half of the signatures that have been collected have come from Eugene rather than from other areas of the state since the drive has been centered in Eugene. He feels that they will not collect enough signatures to have it placed on the ballot. He feels this is another instance where government's involvement in private industry creates problems. He stated this is an idealist piece of consumerism but it ;s impractical. If the people want this, it will be accomplished through the State initiative. Eugene's money does not need to be spent in this way. Jack Jennings, 888 West 2nd Avenue, is a non-smoker but smoking doesn't create a problem for him. He is concerned that in the last few years there has been a general disregard of various kinds of laws. He sees no need to pass more laws that are going to be unenforceable and which would breed disrespect of the law. e 6/18/80--6 Craig Estey, 2625 West 10th Place, stated he feels each business would do what is best for them and if customers prefer smoking then they will allow smoking; on the other hand, if they do not prefer e smoking, then smoking probably will not be allowed. He feels the American economy is self-policing. Fred Lee, 2975 Gilham Road, stated he supports the previous testimony and is president of the Lane County Chapter .of the Oregon Restaurant and Beverage Association. They are opposed to any- mandatory non-smoking ordinance. Alan Lonstron, Valle River Inn and Villa e Green, stated that Section 8 meetings wou d be very detrimental to them. They are in the business of attracting conventions and meetings to this area. It is not realistic to expect people to poll their members or conferees prior to coming to Eugene to see if those people want to smoke in meetings or not. He does not feel this ordinance would be enforce- able. In regard to Section 13 (restaurants), he feels this is totally unrealistic. He noted it is very difficult to segment areas within an establishment. Trying to segregate would be very time- consuming. He sees the potential for people having to stand in line more than they already have to to be accommodated. He added that it would be difficult to enforce. Speaking in favor: Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard, said she is a non-smoker who is affected by smoke. She patronizes restaurants that have non-smoking sections. e She stated that conference rooms generally have the worst ventilation of any. Speaking against: Harvey Zugan stated his rights would be taken away if a proposal like this became an ordinance. He respects the rights of others and is courteous. He does not wish to have his rights as a smoker taken away. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Schue stated that partitions would not be required, just signs and designations of sections of rooms. The ventilation system should be taken into account, but nothing is required to be built. Medical reports have shown that second-hand smoke is harmful. There was a question of whether this would be within the legal authority of the City and she understands that it is. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's office, stated that the proposed ordinance makes it a violation and it relates to criminal types of enforcement. The attorney's office would need to do additional research on the mechanism of enforcement as to whether certain types of courts would have appropriate juris- diction to rule on these cases. By the home rule provision the council can rule that certain things are nuisances or crimes. e 6/18/80--7 Ms. Schue stated they would do the research before bringing the ordinance back to the council. She sees this as primarily an educational activity allowing legal enforcement when necessary. e Smoking used to be allowed in the Council Chamber, but about five years ago no-smoking signs were posted and ashtrays remained and she hasn't seen anyone smoking in there since. Ms. Miller stated that in the New England Journal of Medicine about six weeks ago there was an article which stated that passive smoking is just about as harmful to one's health, if a person is exposed to it on a sustained basis over a period of years, as is moderate cigarette smoking over the same period of time. There is an effect on the cardia-vascular system. Approximately 200,000 deaths each year in the United States are caused by the use of tobacco' products compared to about 100,000 deaths caused from traffic accidents, according to the article. She feels this is a major public health problem. The situation is that smokers should be able to smoke if they wish, but not when it jeopardizes someone else. Reasonable, enforceable laws should be established. The law should be enforced by voluntary compliance rather than by other means. Specifically, item 2 (taxi cabs) should perhaps be reworded to indi- cate that smoking would be permitted according to customer "or" driver preference. Item 4 (theaters, etc.) should have the same sort of language as some of the others--barriers, ventilation, etc.--to minimize the effects. Any references to school buildings should conform to the University's and Lane Community College's policies if possible. She understands item 8 (conference rooms) to mean that e separate areas would be designated by the person in charge so smokers would be on one side and non-smokers could be on the other with those who do not care sitting in the middle. She asked for clarification if that is not what item 8 means. Item 9 (indoor work places) may be difficult to get agreement on, but she thinks it means that if all , employees in the area agree, smoking would be okay. If they don't all agree, then employers can try to work out different accommodations, divide people so non-smokers are together, or else designate a non- smoking area. Item 11 (indoor service and waiting areas) should have the same provisions as item 7 since they are so similar. Mr. Obie stated that he agrees with most of what Ms. Miller said. He is concerned that the council does not pass laws which people will ignore. The council has the responsibility to consider public accept- ance of the law--if people don't accept it, it would be creating a poor environment for citizenship. He would like to approach this with the concept that the no-smoking standard be established where there is public acceptance and as public acceptance grows, it could be expanded. Many of the proposed items fit within those parameters but others would - 6/18/80--8 require modification. Items 1, 2 (including Miller's suggestion), 3, 5, 10, and 14 would fit within these parameters, but item 4 is border- e line--people who do not smoke, historically, sit in their seats and the smokers go to the lobby. Item 6--he thinks people will ignore this item completely so does not feel it would be in the best public interest to do this yet. He has talked with many retailers in the past few weeks and they are opposed to it because they do not feel their customers will appreciate it and then the customers will go to competitors' businesses where they can smoke. Item 7 --he woul d appreciate a separate waiting room to be established due to a concern for people who are already in stressful situations. Additional stress is not needed. Perhaps this could be done by agreement of those present. Item 8--he agreed with Ms. Niven's comments about conference rooms being the worst; he would like to see this increased to 20 or would be comfortable with the solution of having smokers on one side and non-smokers on the other side. He feels item 9 is a real problem. In warehouses or factories the areas are so large and the ventilation so good that he does not see smoking to be a significant problem. He suggests talking with those who work there. It could be a problem in offices with rows of desks, but he feels segregation is a better answer than no smoking. Item Il--he feels that segregation would be better. Item 12--he feels is okay. He feels that, regarding item 13, it would not be a problem to divide a restaurant which is large enough to accommodate 50 people, but he would like to hear more from the owners. He is also curious as to why bars and cocktail lounges are not included. e Ms. Smith stated that whatever ordinance is adopted must be enforce- able. She hoped that some of the suggestions made by Councilors Obie and Miller would be taken into account. She does not feel there is any problem with banning smoking in public meetings but has a problem with banning it in private businesses. People with clients will not want to tell those clients they cannot smoke there because the client may go elsewhere. She feels that non-smoking and smoking areas are generally appreciated. Private rights should be taken more into account to make the ordinance enforceable. Mr. Delay stated he feels comments regarding the "passage of unenforce- able laws" may be idealistic. Workability is an important aspect. Individual rights are important and sensitivity to smoke varies with each individual. He questions letting a cab driver make the decision whether to allow smoking in a cab or not since the passenger might be sensitive to smoke. Mr. Delay suggested that Mr. Obie work with Ms. Schue on some of the issues. Mayor Keller stated that although he is a smoker, it does not offend him when people ask him not to smoke or if there are signs saying that he cannot smoke because he has the option to walk away and smoke e 6/18/80--9 elsewhere. It would be a mockery to pass this ordinance if it could not be enforced. This seems to have been a half-hearted effort to propose something people believe in but that cannot be accomplished. The posting of signs is important as well as a strong education e program. These people are as dedicated to improving health as the council. If this ordinance cannot be enforced and the intent is as Ms. Schue stated to be an eductional program, the council could work with these organizations in providing more education which would be more successful than passing an ordinance that cannot be enforced. Ms. Schue noted that requiring no-smoking signs is one of the most helpful things they could do. She is not sure if the finances of these organizations will allow free distribution of no-smoking signs. June Ann Konker responded that many varieties of signs are available from the Lung Association at no charge. Ms. Smith suggested that Ms. Schue and staff review suggestions and bring them back to the council before being drafted into ordinance form. Mr. Hamel asked if the council should decide whether or not this is a worthwhile item to spend time on. Mayor Keller stated these proposals could be further reviewed and Ms. Schue could bring them back again at a later date. The other option would be for Ms. Schue to make a motion at this time which would be her prerogative. Ms. Schue noted she was not sure what she was being asked to do. She was not sure how many times the council wants to discuss the technical points of this. She had hoped to be able to order a draft of the ordinance today. Ms. Smith noted there have been some suggested changes given to Ms. Schue and she should take those into considera- tion and then bring back a proposal to the council. It could be in draft form. If she is not inclined to take those suggestions, she e could bring it back in the form it is now and the council could vote on it. Ms. Schue said she would take the suggestions, but did not want to order a draft that would be rejected. Mr. Obie asked if staff could prepare an ordinance which included the suggested changes from this meeting. Mr. Lieuallen noted the ordinance could be drafted taking the suggestions into account. Mr. Henry noted he views the instructions as having staff prepare a draft ordinance. Mr. Delay stated he would again like to encourage Mr. Obie to work with Ms. Schue. Mr. Obie stated he would be glad to. IV. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE Mr. Henry stated that the $500 tax has been eliminated and the rate formula has been changed to an advisory function as the major changes. He introduced Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's office, to provide additional information. e 6/18/80--10 Mr. Sercombe stated that the updated version of the condominium conversion ordinance includes deletion of the conversion tax and making the rate . formula advisory. In addition, there were several minor changes: 1) inclusion of the informational brochure described in Section 6(c)(2) in the definition of "condominium instruments" (page 11) and the deletion from that definition of the notice of intent to convert given to tenants; 2) addition of the words "or commercial" in line 5 of the definition of "conversion" (page 12); and 3) Section 10(d), Rulemaking Authority, has been amended to allow the director to issue rules relating to expiration and revocation of final conversion permits. At this time, it is not known whether a time limitation should be placed on the effectiveness of a final permit. This section has also been amended to not require mandatory review of the rules by the council. Many of the rules deal with adminis- trative matters and mandatory review would be unduly consumptive of council time. However, where policy decisions are reached in the rule- making process, the director may forward those rules to the council for review. Jim Croteau, Planning Department, stated he was responding to comments on tenant protection raised from testimony at the public hearing of June 9. Concern was raised that the conversion ordinance inadequately protects the individual and particular housing needs of displaced tenants. It was suggested that the definition of "comparable housing" be expanded to include the special needs of the tenant (aesthetic quality, protection from noise, etc.), that the housing counselor be hired and supervised by the City, that lifetime leases be mandatory if no comparable housing is found, and that special protection be given to those who would be trauma- e tized by a forced move. The staff responded to the needs of special housing for particular needs of a displaced tenant. The tenant survey is designed to pinpoint those needs early in the process. The housing counselor contract, which is subject to City approval, must require that the counselor use best efforts tO'obtain replacement housing which meets the special need of each special- category tenant. The ordinance requires that comparable housing include "similar special facilities for the particular tenant's needs if the tenant is handicapped or elderly." Draft rules on this section will be av ail ab 1 e soon. The director may withdraw City approval of the counselor if she/he fails to abide by the contract, alienates a substantial number of tenants so as to impair effectiveness of the counselor's performance, or refuses to deal with or ignores the needs of any affected special-category tenant. The alternative of requiring comparability for aesthetic or other factors in the definition of comparable housing was rejected because it is highly subjective and it is doubtful with such inclusions that any comparable units could be found. The director is given rule-making authority, however, to expand the definition of comparable housing which could be used in the future if this concern becomes a great problem and any tenant is free to negotiate on comparability. e 6/18/80--11 . Mr. Croteau stated that having the housing counselor as a City employee i was rejected in fear of potential anit-trust problems. Anti-trust exposure would be created by City selection of a single counselor the developer must pay for. As written, the ordinance allows developer . i selection with City overview which minimizes the anti-trust potential liability. Mandatory lifetime leases were rejected earlier by the task force. As a practical matter, lifetime leases will be offered if no comparable units can be found. The ordinance precludes eviction and substantial rent increases. -It is too early in this regulatory process to create a six- or twelve-month deadline for the provision of comparable housing. In some cases, it may take that long and there is equity in requiring a move after .30 days' notice at any time that comparable housing has been secured. :In regard to traumatized tenants, Mr. Croteau stated that it was suggested no evictions occur (or even displacement to comparable units) if the tenant will be traumatized by the move. It should be noted that if a person is handicapped, he/she may be classified as a special-category tenant. Staff concluded that the determination of such trauma was too subjective to be an enforceable or manageable requirement and that a broad-scale granting of lifetime tenancy to such a person was beyond the wishes of the council in light of the earlier rejection of lifetime tenancies as mandatory for all special-category tenants. Mr. Lieuallen noted that in regard to supervision of the housing counselor selection and dealing with special needs as well as other tasks, perhaps the Director of HCC would not be the person who directly deals with this. Mr. Sercombe noted that his authority would be defined in the administra- e tive rules. Mr. Lieuallen asked whether giving the authority to the HCC Director to not approve a facilitator would be an anti-trust issue. Mr. Sercombe said this is not the same issue as the City only having one fac i1 itator. Adequate notice will be given to any developers if a coun- selor is found to be inadequate. In regard to traumatized tenants, Mr. Lieuallen asked if this expresses the concerns of the task force. Ms. Schue responded that it was not a concern for lifetime tenancy itself. It is difficult to know before a move if someone will be traumatized. Mr. Delay noted these people are difficult to identify in advance and after they have become traumatized it is too late to do anything about it. Mr. Lieuallen suggested that perhaps someone could research cases where there have been documented traumatized tenants. Ms. Smith asked if the review of the ordinance's impact after one year was included in the ordinance. Mr. Sercombe responded that he did not think it had been. She noted she would like to know the impact on the rental housing market and would like administrative costs to be included in the review. Manager suggested that this review be included in the motion. Mr. Lieuallen noted that if, on a nationwide basis, "traumatization" can be established as a problem and could be predicted, then he would request that the ordinance be amended. He would argue for life-time tenancy if a corre 1 at i on was est ab 1 i shed. Mr. Delay added the need to make housing a high priority for the Joint Housing Committee. .e 6/18/80--12 CB 2137--An ordinance relating to the conversion of apartment buildings to condominiums; and declaring an emergency . Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, 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, with a review at one year of administrative costs and impact on the rental housing market. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18655. The meeting was recessed to the McNutt Room for agenda item V. V. METRO PLAN UPDATE Mr. Croteau stated a summary of the River Road/Santa Clara area situation was sent out by special courier. Mayor Keller noted that last night three jurisdictions approved all 12 items as outlined on the June 16 agenda. The original 12 issues are all resolved, except for the River Road/Santa Clara item. Mr. Farah stated that Policy 7 states that urbanizable land can become e urban land only through annexation. It was determined at last night1s meeting that this was true everywhere except River Road/Santa Clara. They have prepared a two-page summary of the tabloid. An opinion survey by Lane County showed that people in the River Road/Santa Clara area feel they need additional information before annexation would occur. Mr. Lieuallen stated that one of the issues raised last night was whether or not the City position addresses the concerns of the people in River Road/Santa Clara. One main question is sewers and costs. He asked if staff is working on costs of alternatives. Special service districts would be more than annexation, but this information needs to be demon- strated to the people. He asked if the City would be pushing for resolution of this situation prior to completion of the study. Mr. Farah noted the tabloid is a compilation of facts, not a study. Ms. Mi 11 er noted she did not feel that LCDC would support the plan. It does not contain a resolution to the River Road/ Santa Clara situation. She feels it will become no easier to resolve. She said she is not certain it will be productive to say that we will work together with Lane County. She felt it would be better if citizens were more involved. Mayor Keller noted agreement with this. Mr. Lieuallen noted that if the City found a process for annexation to take place, another element should be that ad valorem taxes would be used for direct benefits. e 6/18/80--13 Steve Gordon had talked about the sewage problems and stated that there is no such thing as an interim sewage program; they become permanent. Mr. Lieuallen asked if that means the City would oppose this on a long-term . basis. He feels Lane County is probably capable of doing this as much as . the City is. Mr. Delay noted the City would like to avert what happened in the Bethel-Danebo area when the City tried to work out the annexation .. situation there. Mr. Delay stated that a couple of years ago, a report . with novel suggestions for funding had been presented to Lane County and he wondered what happened to that report. Mr. Farah indicated that it was presented to Lane County and he is uncertain what happened to it after that. Mr. Henry stated that several communications of this type had been sent out, one suggesting that incremental provision of services and charges be initiated. The City is not going to be able to pave every street immediately or at one time. Sanitary and storm sewers would be the major expenses and the City would pay for the storm sewers. Mr. Farah noted that alternative sewage treatment simply would not be supported by City policy. Mr. Lieuallen stated he had understood that the soil condi- tions in the River Road/Santa Clara area were unique and not found in other areas. Mayor Keller noted that density was the major concern and that it concludes that, ultimately, the sewage will have to be dealt with by a sewage treatment plant. He did not feel that the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission or EPA would allow this. Ms. Smi th noted that funding for the new sewage treatment plant is difficult enough as it is. Mr. Lieuallen stated he did not know where the money was coming from to build the main plant, let alone the infrastructures in an area like River Road. Mr. Lieuallen stated that other areas, such as Laurel Hill Valley, are not being developed to urban density as they could be either. He feels if there is going to be a hard-nosed attitude about density that e it should be city-wide. Mr.Obie noted the trade-off would be concrete and blacktop across the farm lands of this county. Mr. Delay noted that everyone has agreed with everything else except for the River Road/Santa Clara area and what the policy should be there. He does not feel it is hard-nosed to confront the issue. Mayor Keller noted another proposal was an alternative city, but he did not feel that that would be allowed either. The City is trying to be sensitive to the people, even though they are being portrayed as giants trying to swallow them. Mr. Croteau noted that at the next meeting there would be a brief overview and they hope to get back to the text. Individual issues could be looked at 1 ater. e 6/18/80--14 Mayor Keller noted that Springfield is moving for adoption by the July 1 deadline because they could lose half of the financing of $10,000 they e would receive by submitting a plan on time. Mr. Croteau stated that Springfield has been waiting for Eugene and Lane County to resolve their issues and suggested that perhaps a letter could be sent to encourage LCDC to give more time. Consensus was to send a letter. The meeting was adjourned to June 23, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ~J Charles T. Henry City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:so/CM7b12 e - 6/18/80--15