Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/22/1980 Meeting ~.: M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber December 22, 1980 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. COUNCILOR ABSENT: Eric Haws. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller. Mayor Keller opened the final meeting of 1980 by recognizing that the meeting would be the last for Councilors Delay and Lieuallen. He said the City owes them a great debt of gratitude for their hours of commitment through the years. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS . A. Rezonings 1. Property located on the south side of 5th Avenue between Adams and Monroe streets from C-2 Community Commercial District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District (City of Eugene: 5th Avenue) (Z 80-24) (map distributed) Mr. Henry said that the rezoning had been unanimously approved by the Planning Commission at its October 7, 1980, meeting. He introduced Susan Smernoff, Planning Department. Ms. Smernoff explained the zone change was in the Whiteaker Neighborhood. The action recommended is part of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. On the land use diagram in the Whiteaker plan, this area is designated medium- to high-density residential development which translates into 10 to 40 units per acre. For that reason, the Planning Department recommended, and the Planning Commission con- curred on, a zone change to R-3. Located on these lots at this time are a 12-unit building complex, a duplex, and a 14-unit apartment building. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. '-. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 1 CB 2227--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from C-2 Community Commercial .' District to R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District for property located on the south side of 5th Awenue between Adams and Monroe streets. Ms. Snith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, that findings supporting . the rezoning as set forth i.n Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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 th i s time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2227 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Snith moved, seconded by Mr. L ieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All counc il ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18735. 2. Property located on the east side of Waite Street south of Elmira Road from RA Suburban Residential District to M-2 Light Industrial District and a change in sign district from Residential to Indus- trial (Cascade Plating Company) (Z 80-26) (map distributed) Mr. Henry explained that the application was unanimously approved at the . October 7, 1980, Planning Commission meeting. He introduced Jim Croteau, Planning Department. Mr. Croteau noted that this rezoning is being requested by the Cascade Plating Company and explained that the properties to the north are slated to be part of the Roosevelt exten,sion and floodway (east-west direction). Properties to the south are industrial in nature. The M-2 properties on the north of Cross Street are industrial and single-family. The area is zoned industrial in the Metropol- itan General Plan. It was delineated by the Roosevelt Boulevard extension. Mr. Delay asked if the extension would affect this property. Mr. Croteau felt it would not. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2228--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RA Suburban Residential District to M-2 Light Industrial District and a change in sign district from Residential to Industrial for property located on the east side of Waite Street south of Elmira Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that .. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 2 f' , . 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 2228 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 coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18736. 3. Property located on the southeast corner of 10th Avenue and Washington Street from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to MU Mixed-Use District (L. R. Brant) (Z 80-29) (map distributed) Mr. Henry explained the application was filed by L. R. Brant. He noted the Planning Commission's unanimous approval at the October 7, 1980, meeting. He introduced Mr. Croteau. Mr. Croteau explained the request seeks to add two tax lots to the established Westside Mixed-Use zoning district via a zone change from R-3 to MU. The vacant church building (formerly Church of Christ Congregation) has not been occupied for a year and a half. The Planning Commission and the City Council have encouraged residential mixed use in this area. In 1974 there was a commercial study, and in 1977, with the Downtown Alternative Study, the mixed-use zoning area was enacted. The Planning Commission's recommendation was predicated on . the use of the existing building for mixed use, emphasizing the mixed use on the west side would be primarily residential. Mr. Delay noted, in the Planning Commission minutes, someone who had not had an opportunity to speak at the hearing. He asked if the person was a representative of a neighborhood group. Mr. Croteau answered that the individual was Thomas Anderson, Chairperson of the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project. He referred council to the letter submitted to them by Mr. Anderson. The Westside Neighbor- hood Quality Project, at its November meeting, voted to oppose Mr. Brant's request. Mr. Delay asked if the Westside Neighborhood group had been made aware of the public hearing. Mr. Croteau answered that the neighborhood had not been noti- fied because the request was not located within their neighborhood. Ms. Miller wondered if mixed use in an area would require a mixture of resi- dential and commercial uses. Mr. Croteau said that she was correct; however, the emphasis in the mixed-use zoning district is on residential uses. He noted the uses allowed under the provisions of mixed-use zoning. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. I . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 3 I ! I: Speaking in favor of the rezoning: , Ron Woodruff, 1466 waShinfton, speaking on behalf of L. R. Brant, responded . to Mr. Anderson's letter Items 1 and 4). He read Mr. Anderson's letter (Item 1). He stated they were emphasizing housing for the elderly on the adjacent tax 10t--52 units or 26,000 square feet, with 4,000 square feet in office space. They are emphasizing the hous,ing component of their project. He read Item 4 of Mr. Anderson's letter. He explained their intention to preserve the old church as much as possible. One of the assets of the community is retaining the church in its original character. It i,s the visual and aesthetic advantage of the project and the property. Speaking in opposition to the rezoning: Tom Anderson, 790 West Broadway, speaking as Chairperson of the Westside Neigh- borhood Quality Project, said the WNQP was given notification of the project as a courtesy by Bill Sloat since the project is on the border of the neighborhood. He appeared at the Planning Commission meeting. He referred to his letter submitted to the City Council. He pointed out that once a zone change is made, anything can be done within the scope of the new zoning, independent of the anticipated project. Mr. Anderson reviewed the neighborhood concerns as out- lined in his submitted letter: 1) holding the developers to what they now say will go in, rather than focusing. on the commercial; 2) off-street parking availability; 3) upgrading essentially to R-4 under the guise of mixed use; 4) increased traffic noise and pollution; and 5) the dichotomy of the two major policies of City--increased housing density in the downtown area and retaining the residential characteristics of the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson' explained the . neighborhood felt this kind of mixed use should be contained on the east side of Washington Street.. Thi S app1 icat ion is on the edge of that area. They are concerned that commercial development ~i11 spread into their neighborhood. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Delay asked if granting the MU zoning would in essence mean R-4 zoning. Mr. Croteau answered if the building was torn down it could be rebuilt at R-4 density. Mr. Lieuallen observed the statements of the applicant concerned moderate- and low-income housing, housing for the elderly, etc., as well as potential condo- minium uses of the building. He asked, given current interest rates, if 10w- or moderate-income housing seems very likely. Mr. Croteau suggested the church had been empty for a long time which means the land was not able to be sold and that might indicate a more likely possibility of conversion. Mr. Lieual1en was concerned that conversion to residential uses might be unlikely. With economic conditions as they are, a developer might be tempted to level the building and erect something strongly commercial in nature. MU zoning does have some protec- tions. A residential aspect does not seem likely. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 4 ., . Ms. Schue asked about the amount of commercial area allowed under mixed use. Mr. Croteau explained that there 'are two use sections under the Downtown-Westside Zoning District. Commercial is allowed as an outright use by no more than 50 percent of the gross floor area. In addition, the off-street parking for the commercial or nonresidential area cannot exceed three spaces for the building. Under a conditional use permit, the structure can be exclusively commercial if the lot is less than 6,000 square feet. If the church were not there a condi- tional use could be granted that would permit residential and commercial uses provided the ratio of residential to commercial is 2:1. They could expand a nonresidential use through the conditional use permit and other commercial uses might be permitted. The purpose of the MU zoning is to encourage residential development. Mr. Lieuallen observed that a new structure would have greater restrictions upon it. Mr. Croteau replied it would. The only way they could have a commercial structure would be by obtaining a conditional use permit. The standards in the ordinance further restricts them. Ms. Miller asked whether a developer could build the 50-percent commercial and wait to develop the rest of the residential area. Mr. Croteau said the mixed- use zoning reads that 50 percent of the gross floor area must be retained for residential occupancy. Randy Brant, 754 WashinRton, replied to Mr. Lieuallen's concern about the . economlC probabll1ty. e said there is a property tax benefit for elderly housing projects. Another factor is State funding for elderly housing (at a nine- to ten-percent interest rate). Funds are available. The terms of pur- chase make the project viable. To deny zoning because of concern for the preservation of the architecture of the church would be unwise since, under R-3, it would be wise to tear the church down. He summarized by explaining how they would try to preserve and make use of the church. Mr. Lieuallen asked what things could occur under MU zoning. He wondered if the church could be converted to half commercial while the residential half was undeveloped. The only restriction would be the parking requirement. Mr. Croteau replied the developer could not retain the balance of the property for residential. It must be devoted to residential occupancy. Mr. Lieuallen noted that the units would be roughly 500 square feet--small studios. CB 2229--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from R-3 Multiple-Family Residential District to MU Mixed-Use District for property located on the southeast corner of 10th Avenue and Washington Street. Ms. Smith moved, se~onded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 5 Mr. Lieua11en said he would support the motion. The applicant's forecast of the likelihood of the building being razed under the current zoning persuaded him. .. The City is committed to uses of that kind in that area. The City is working with the neighborhood and it is hoped the City can help with traffic and pollu- tion problems. Mr. Delay thought they had come a long way in the relationship between the developer, the City, and the neighborhood group. He recollected a conflict between a developer and a neighborhood group that resulted in the deannexation of an area. The conflict between the two policies is something the council and the Planning Commission have to deal with. It is nice to know,he said, that there are people in the neighborhood willing to participate and deal with these conflicting goals. He hoped the WNQP pursues annexation. It was through their efforts that mixed-use zoning was put in place. He agreed with Mr. Lieua11en and would support the motion. Ms. Miller observed that the church would be a difficult building to adapt for residential uses. This is an effort to reconcile a difficult situation to save the building. Without contract zoning, the council will have to hope that is what will happen. She wanted to note that the highest zoning potentially under MU is R-4. As a council, they might want to consider whether R-3 might be more appropriate under MU. It is an ordinance amendment that they should keep in mind. Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2229 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, that the bill be . approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18737. 4. Property located south of West 11th Avenue on the west side of Oak Patch Road from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-1/SR Neighborhood Commercial District with Site Review procedures, including a sign district boundary change from Industrial District to Outlying Commercial District (Gary Hughes) (Z 80-28) (map distributed) Mr. Henry noted the application was approved by a unanimous vote of the Planning Commission. He introduced Jim Croteau. Mr. Croteau stated that the property was located on Oak Patch Road south of West 11th on the north of the Amazon Channel. All the property north is zoned M-2 except the property directly to the north. Land to the south is R-2/PD and is in multiple-family apartments. The Planning Commission noted that it was a good location for a neighborhood commercial facility to serve the expanding popula- tion in this general vicinity. They were concerned about the configuration of the parcel (116 feet in depth) and asked for site review procedures to review the proposed development of the property. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 6 r . No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Gary Hughes, 1480 Amberland, announced he was present and available to answer que$t10ns. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2230--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-1/SR Neighborhood Commercial District with Site Review procedures, including a sign district boundary change from Industrial District to Outlying Commercial District for property located south of West 11th Avenue on the west side of Oak Patch Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieual1en, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Obie asked Mr. Croteau if site review was done by the administrative staff. . He was concerned that the staff be empathetic toward the Amazon Channel in relation to future development, as well as to the bicycle path along the Amazon Channel. Mr. Croteau assured Mr. Obie that he would be reviewing that site. Roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2230 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded' by Mr. Lieual1en that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18738. 5. Property located on the south side of West 10th Avenue between Grant and Hayes streets from RA Suburban Residen- tial District to RG Garden Apartment District (Edward Senger) (Z 80-27) (map distributed) Mr. Henry explained that this request was unanimously approved at the October 7, 1980, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Croteau explained the property is zoned RA and fronts on 10th Avenue. Parcell is an old auction sales warehouse which was a nonconforming use up to a year ago. The property is zoned RA. To the north across the street is . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 7 Grant Street Park. East and mid-block are single-family residences. West are also single-family residences. The property directly to the east is C-2, . fronting on West 11th, and is commercially developed. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Doublas McCool, 777 High Street, representing the applicant, noted that the recommendations of the Planning Commission were arrived at after a full public hearing. The neighborhood group was in full support of the proposal. The recommendation of the staff was adopted by the Planning Commission and it was arrived at after full discussions with the applicant. . It represents a reason- able approach to a difficult problem posed by the existence of a large but unusual commercial property based on the existing zoning. The believe that it is in the interest of the neighborhood that the application be adopted. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. CB 2231--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RA Suburban Residential District to RG Garden Apartment, District for property located on the south side of West 10th Avenue between Grant and Hayes streets. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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 2231 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua1len, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All coun- cilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18739. 6. Properties located south of Greenacres Road, east of Delta Highway, from C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures to RP/SR Residential Professional District with Site Review procedures (all or portions of Tax Lots 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600, and Tax Lots 2000 and 2900) and from RP/SR Residential Professional District with Site Review procedures to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures (all or portions of Tax Lots 1800 and 1801) and application of the Integrated Shopping Sign District to all properties zoned to C-2/SR (Trygve Vik) (Z 80-25) (map distributed) Mr. Henry noted the unanimous approval of the Planning Commission at the October 7, 1980, meeting. He introduced Jim Croteau. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 8 . Mr. Croteau explained that the zone change request is a reconfiguration of the . C-2/SR zoned property and the RP property into a more logical configuration to facilitate development and to protect the residential area located to the east. The land surrounding is mostly residential. Beltline Road is to the south and Delta Highway to the west. The property to the east is single-family subdivi- sion. A churc~ is located to the south of Acacia Street. Lots on Applewood Lane are developed residentially R-2; 1300, 1400, and 1500 are proposed for residential planned unit development at R-2 Density. There is a vacant C-2/PD parcel, Tax Lots 1200 and 1204 located also on the north side of Greenacres, just east of Delta Highway. The seesaw line being developed takes into account a clinic not included in the request which is RP/SR property located on Greenacres. It also bulges out halfway down the property to cover an existing grove of mature trees located in the proposed RP-zoned area. Councilor Smith said she would abstain from voting since her husband is a partner in the firm representing the applicant. No other ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, indicated he was present to answer questions. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President Street, asked how many acres were included. She had no prior information on this subject. She asked if it was the first hearing. She asked that it be brought up at another meeting, since it covered so much 1 and. . There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Croteau responded, in the reconfiguration of the existing zoning split are 24 acres of C-2 zoning and 11 acres of RP zoning. The reconfiguration would result in 26 acres of C-2 zoning and 9 acres of RP, so there is a shift toward C-2 zoning. In the early 1960's, the C-2 property was rezoned. It has been brought before the City for the addition of RP zoning in the 1970's. In 1977 or 1978, the PO suffix that was attached to the property was changed to a site review suffix. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously approved it. CB 2232--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from C-2/SR Community Commer- cial District with Site Review procedures to RP/SR Residential Professional District with Site Review procedures for property located south of Greenacres Road, east of Delta Highway (all or portions of Tax Lots 1300, 1400, 1500, 1600--Assessor's Map 17-03-18-4 1 and Tax Lots 2000 and 2900--Assessor's Map 17-03-18). Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings sup- porting the rezonings as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bills be read the second time by council bill numbers only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously with Ms. Smith abstaining. . Council Bill 2232 was read the second time by council bill number only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 9 Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All coun- . cilors present voting aye, with Ms. Smith abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18740. CB 2233--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RP/SR Residential Profes- sional District with Site Review procedures to C-2/SR Community Commercial District with Site Review procedures and application of the Integrated Shopping Sign District for property located south of Greenacres Road, east of Delta Highway (all or portions of Tax Lots 1800 and 1801--Assessor's Map 17-03-18). Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconde,d by Mr. Hamel, that findings sup- porting the rezonings as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of October 7, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; that the bi 11 s be read the second time by counc il bill numbers only, with unanimous consent of the council; and that enactment be consider ed at this time. Ro 11 call vote. Motion carried unanimously with Ms. Smith abstaining. Council Bill 2233 was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bills be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. A 11 coun- cilors present voting aye, with Ms. Smith abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18741. B. Ordinance Establishing Mandatory Weatherization Standards for Existing . Residences (memo, ordinance distributed) Mr. Henry introduced the ordinance. He explained the matter had been discussed at great length and developed by members of the Energy Conservation Policy Board which included members of the EWEB Board, the Planning .Commission, and the City Council. They held public hearings, and there was an initial briefing at a previous council meeting on August 11. He introduced Greg Page, City staff, and Jean Reeder, EWES staff. He noted the presence of Camilla Pratt, EWEB Board member, as well as Jack Jones, Bonneville Power Administration. Mr. Page explained he was staff for the Energy Policy Board which recommended the program under consideration. He noted the presence of Mick Nolte, Building Division, and Ray Willard, Housing and Community Conservation staff. The meeting would be recorded for the benefit of the two councilors-elect in case the council decided to hold the matter over. Mr. Page gave the background, provisions of the ordinance, and the public support and Objections received. Council reviewed the subject in the fall of 1979 at a council goals retreat. .They invited Keith Parks, EWEB, to informally and candidly give them a briefing on the energy situation and what the City Council could do. Mr. Parks presented six points: 1) He forecast shortages in the mid- to late-1980's. 2) It would affect the ability of Eugene to grow and to provide jobs in the community. 3) Cost of the new power was extremely expensive and large rate increases were forecast. 4) In his opinion, voluntary . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 10 r' . measures were not working enough. Only through the law did he feel we conserve voluntarily. 5) EWEB did not have police power to implement mandatory measures. ,6) Local government attempts to institute mandatory measures have not been easy as it is a very controversial issue. At the goals session, the council discussed other issues and voted on their priorities. Energy conservation became the council's No.1 priority a year ago. As a result, the council set up an Energy Conservation Board. They selected Councilors Obie and Miller, Camilla Pratt, and Planning Commission members Eleanor Mulder and Adrienne Lannom. The council charged in the bylaws of the Conservation Board to examine and develop for presentation to the council recommendations on incentives, educa- tional programs', and mandatory measures to increase energy efficiency. The topic areas were existing and future structures, commercial and industrial facilities, transportation systems, and waste collection systems. Spec i fi ca lly, the council charged the Policy Board to solicit and encourage intensive input from affected interest groups and the general public. To address the issues, the board held meetings in the spring and heard testimony from invited guests. At the end of each meeting, they invited public input. The board heard a diversified group of speakers including the Oil Heat Institute, Northwest Natural Gas, the State DOE. They also heard testimony from EWEB discussing the State curtailment program. Under Stage 2 of the existing curtailment program, the major users in Eugene will be required by existing law to cut off I service. Under Stage 3, by existing State law, there are provisions for .black- ! out and voltage reductions. . The board examined voluntary measures of conservation already being accomplished; the Whiteaker Neighborhood Group, the Oregon energy extension program, the Bethel energy-efficient program. One proposal to have solar subdivisions is being discussed by the Planning Commission on January 6, 1981. Small business energy conservation efforts are being examined through HUD and DOE grants. Next year, the board will examine i large apartments, commercial and industrial sectors. The board discovered that I retrofitting existing structures represents a significant amount of energy that could be recovered and used to help us provide energy at a cheaper cost than through the generation of new resources. The question was how to do it. The board examined a variety of ways. One was a two-tier electrical rate structure for weatherized and unweatherized homes. Another was weatherization at the time of resale similar to the Portland program. Another was an energy audit at the time of resale. One was an energy use disclosure at the time of resale. i Another was a prescriptive standard. The essence of the testimony received was that voluntary measures were not enough. The board examined the most palatable way to institute a mandatory energy conservation effort in this community. The ordinance represents a proposal discussed by the Energy Board on March 5, 1980. It is a proposal that has remained the same as in the public hearing at that time, as well as subsequent public hearings. There are two changes: Water tank temperature setting and water flow restrictors were removed from the prescriptive standards. The board felt it involved a change in lifestyle of the residents. In August the proposal ! was presented to the council. Council requested it be presented in ordinance , . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 11 form by the end of the year. The program was discussed in detail in the city- . wide distributed Parks and Recreation letter. In November, the proposal was presented on cable TV. Council requested the ordinance be presented at the end of December. In the next four years, there will be strong educational programs. On January 19, it will be discussed with neighborhood group leaders. Information programs will be developed in cooperation with EWEB. A key provision of the mandatory measure was financing. Mr. Page introduced Ms. Reeder to discuss the program. Ms. Reeder discussed the financing plan adopted by the EWEB Board on May 27, 1980. The details are being worked out and developed but Ms. Reeder emphasized that a loan program would be in place and available by EWEB. There will be a zero-percent-interestloan for electric space heat customers. There will be matching grants for most cost-efficient measures installed by electric heat customers. (If a customer does the work, they are donating their labor. EWEB will donate the materials.) There will be low-interest loans for non-electrical space heat customers equal to the bond rate so that EWEB customers are not paying for those loans. There will be available low-cost loans and grants for landlords and tenants. There will be the provision for payback at the time of resale or over a monthly payment schedule which can be assumed by a new resident. The availability of the loan program and the list of measures for which the loans will be available is independent of the ordinance under consideration. The fin'ancing program wi 11 cover all eight measures covered in the ordinance. With regard to the status of the loan program, Congress rescinded the provisions, saying utilities could not loan money. On November 17, the Attorney General issued an opinion that they do not need to change the Oregon Constitution to . have public utility financing of weatherization. EWEB is involved in a test case which had a preliminary ruling December 2, 1980, that EWEB is not in violation of the Oregon Constitution, the State statutes, or the City of Eugene Charter if there ;s a weatherization program. The case is being appealed to the appellate court. A decision will come in two to six months. At that time, EWEB will go to a bond issue election. They believe that they will need voter approval to finance bonds for the program. They hope to offer the program by the end of 1981. Mr. Page explained the concerns of the Policy Board. The loan program had to be available to rental properties. A landlord could raise the rent to cover the loan payment. The tenant would be better served because the rent after weather- ization, plus the loan fees~ would be less after the weatherization than before. The landlord would be able to take advantage of those tax credits that are equitable to the EWEB loan program or retain capital gains at the sale of the investment property. The financing program would be available to oil and natural gas customers. It is cost-effective to the rate payer. It has no impact on the property tax. Mr. Page reviewed the key elements of the ordinance. It becomes effective in 1985. The Energy Board believes the citizens will voluntarily accomplish the work given the forecast electric rate increases and the availability of financing. For the houses weatherized in the four-year period, this ordinance would have very little impact. EWEBwou 1 d have record s on fi 1 e. The ordinance affects . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 12 residential structures up to four-plexes. It is a prescriptive standard, . clearly defining what needs to be done. It does not affect the sale of a house or a utility hook-up. It affects people only at the sale of the house or change of utility service. Ms. Reeder explained EWEB has had an energy analysis program for three years. Seven percent of the residential customers have been surveyed (50 percent response) . The results show 15 percent put in all the recommendations; 40 percent put in some of the recommendations. These figures do not tell what the insulation levels are in the homes built prior to 1974 in the service area. A residential survey of the Pacific Northwest by Bonneville Power Administration and the Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, published in July 1980, provides the following information: "In the Pacific Northwest, homes built prior to 1974, 12 percent have no ceiling insulation; 44 percent have R-20 or less ceiling insulation; 20 percent of the rental homes have no ceiling insulation; in Oregon, residences built prior to 1980, 68 percent are without floor insulation; 54 percent have no moisture control ground cover; 78 percent have no domestic hot water heater insulation." EWEB assumed 30 percent turn their heat up after weatherization. Forty-five percent of the houses are electrically heated. After this very conservative estimate, 32,000 megawatts per year savings or three percent of the residential load would be accomplished by this weatherization. EWEB would work with homeowners to put these conservation measures in place. After six months they would notify the City. The estimated cost of the manda- tory program is approximately $68,000 a year over an eight-year period or . one-half million dollars in total. Mr. Page noted the cost is substantially less than new generation. EWEB could grant an on-site variance. Owners could appeal to the City Housing Inspector, the Housing Code Board of Appeals, and to the City Council if they chose. The City would bear the cost of the administrative details. It is hard to estimate these costs. The program could be self-supporting--fines would cover costs of administration and enforcement. Mr. Page responded to a letter from Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson's first point was that there was not enough time to respond to the ordinance. Mr. Page answered that the proposal was developed in March and that there had been no substantial changes to it since. The second concern was that EWEB does not have financing. It was suggested that it was better to give people notice in time to plan and if EWEB financing is not available, the council could repeal the ordinance. The third concern was why apartments of five or more units were excluded. There is not financing currently available by EWEB. The prescriptive standards are more difficult to define for apartment buildings. The board will work in 1981 with interest groups to develop a weatherization program for council approval. The fourth concern was a formal appeal process for a landlord with several rentals. The appeals process is available for everyone. The fifth concern was whether J the board had considered the reluctance of the elderly to incur debt. Mr. Page answered yes, elderly citizens do not want to incur debt; therefore, it happens only when there is a utility change in service. Mr. Page described other concerns of the public: Would the houses weatherized under Section 2 of the . ordinance increase the level of indoor pollutants beyond health limits, more MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 13 ! specifically Radon-222 or Radon-226? Or would the build-up of carbon monoxide, tobacco smoke, or benzine or wall formaldehyde cause health problems? Mr. Page . answered the question by saying that they did not consider this to be a problem because of the number of air changes per hour (in a typical house, two changes per hour). DOE estimates one-half air change per hour. Older homes lack wall insulation. EWES has researched the Modina homes and does not consider it a problem. If council passes the ordinace, will the rate payer get a financial reward from the SPA? Mr. Page introduced Jack Jones of BPA. Jack Jones, Bonneville Power Administr~ion, stated the implications of the Pac1fic Northwest Energy Conservat10n and Planning Act and how it relates to the decision the council is facing tin whether the City of Eugene should mandate a minimum level of weatherization for single- to four-plex family dwellings. If Eugene supports mandatory conservation and mandates weatherization, will they receive economic benefit? If so, when would these benefits become available? First, the act directs SPA and the council to conduct a cost-effective region- wide conservation program. Weatherization would be a prime candidate for a region-wide program. Mr. Jones would expect action in the next few months without formation of the region-wide council. Such a program will include economic incentives to the conserving individual. The act directs the adminis- trator'to grant billing credits if a utility or a government body demonstrates that they are able to achieve conservation that goes beyond the region-wide program. EWES could receive a financial incentive which would be reflected in the lower electrical rate increases for EWES customers. As for timing, the Regional Planning Board would be involved. EWEB and the City would demonstrate that the implementation of the ordinance is more effective than other measures adopted by the regional council. The act is very new; many procedures need to . be developed. SPA will hold a public information meeting January 14 at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chamber. Ms. Miller made a statement that the formation of the ordinance was subject to adequate available financing such as EWEB is working to put in place. She presumed that financing would be in place before any mandatory measures take effect. If that were not so, the council would reconsider the act and the financing. She hoped council would consider that statement as part of any action it takes on the ordinance. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the ordinance: Bill Snyder, 28637 Sutherlin Road, Whiteaker Energy, Inc., saw conservation as the ch1ef source of new energy. It 1S a local resource to create jobs and long-term security. Zero-percent financing has caused homeowners to postpone weatherization. He encouraged council to take quick action in support of the ordinance. David Marentette, 1513 Fairmount, owner of a 50-year-old house, supported the ordinance and urged its passage. He thanked the Energy Conservation Soard for its work. u . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 14 , Paul Williamson, 1740 West 14th Avenue, representative of Whiteaker Energy, said minimum weatherization should be the right of a homeowner buying a house. Badly . weatherized homes cause the rates to increase and affect the health and welfare of occupants. Time is not on the side of the best solution as fuel costs rise. In the time of crisis, quick solutions will appear attractive. Conservation takes time. He would like to see water pipe insulation under floors added to the prescriptive standards. Once the underfloor is weatherized, the heat that keeps the pipes from freezing in the winter is eliminated. He hoped heating ducts would include return air ducts. Doug Mansfield, 309 West 22nd, Chairman of the Energy Conservation Committee, Lane County Builders Association, said they were not in unanimous agreement about the mandatory aspects of the proposal. They had worked with Greg Page and the ordinance is the culmination of much thought. If EWEB financing does not go into effect, the proposal should be reconsidered. He urged the council to make provision for it beforehand. The ordinance needs more public hearings after the holidays. Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams, Executive Board of Whiteaker Community Council, supported the weatherization standards. The proposed standard represents the first implementation of Housing Policy 6 of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan. The implementation of the standards is adequate to ensure that those who weatherize can take advantage of the current and impending financing. The standards are sensitive to the needs of the rental housing and the importance of protecting property owners from undue economic burdens. The adoption of standards for existing residences will provide a sound foundation for future conservation measures for other types of structures. One concern of the Whiteaker Community . Council is the extent to which the weatherization costs will be passed through to low-income renters. Carl Hosticka, 2420 Emerald, argued that the free market should rule. People acting on their own good will do the social good, but he pointed out 49 percent of the Eugene housing is rental housing. No economic incentive exists since the tenant pays the energy costs. He urged the City Council to interfere in the free market in this instance and pass the ordinance. Don Corson, 2076 Alder, Energy Consultant to the Department of Energy, the Energy Extension Service, the Solar Utilization Network, supported the ordinance, as a reasoned, needed, and fair ordinance. Over the past year, it has been a source of public discussion. It is straightforward, effective, and at a modest cost. Public financing proposes that all people will be able to do it. Mariam Russell, 1185 West 13th, a widow on Social Security, spoke of the problems of a renter 1n an unweatherized duplex. She urged passage of the ordinance. Those speaking against the proposal: Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Blvd, objected to subsidizing industrial growth if they would weatherize in order for more industry usage in the city. She objected to spending $30 million to reduce electric usage one and one-half to five percent. She advocated postponement of the measure. Voluntary measures will work although they are waiting to see what the legislature and BPA will do. She . urged an authentic survey by an unbiased organization. (In the survey cited by MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 15 Ms. Reeder, she had noted that 46 percent have ceiling insulation.) Interest- . free financing is not available. She advocated waiting for the legislature to take action. There are fire hazard problems with dense insulation in attics over old wiring. She is against mandatory weatherization. She asked why non-electric homes were included. .She felt the problem would take care of itself. Wood burners would not recover weatherization costs. The ordinance is unfair. It applies to residents only. The appeals process bothers her. Many would not want to appeal. Older people should be exempted. How will they prove installation was made? Jack Jennings, 3737 Hawthorne, agreed with Ms. Johnson. He objected to the attitude of the City Council--the idea that when there is a problem, pass a law, and that solves the problem. The smoking ordinance is an example. He asked the council members if their minds were already made up. He asked if there were undeclared conflicts of interest on the council. He was for weath- erization but not mandatory weatherization. Renters cannot pay the costs passed on. Jerry Fogelson" 70 East 23rd, seconded Mr. Jennings' comments. He had insulated his rentals. He got contradictory reports from EWES. He had talked to dry rot and insulation experts. Underfloor insulation with dampness problems could cause dry rot problems by retrofitting older homes. He did not believe the cost estimates put forth, especially the one-half million dollars. He did not like paying administrative costs by fines. People are turned off by government, he said. Howard Warner, 1425 West 12th, said the Eugene Register-Guard said all that he . would say. He urged the council to hold publlC meetlngs and inform the public. There would be a better chance of the bond issue passing, less chance of opposi- tion, if people were better informed. Margaret Ellis, 2486 Grovedale Drive, Springfield, owns property in Eugene. She is an electric user but will not benefit because she heats with other fuel. She will have to add $675 a year to her rents. Rentals are a service to the City. To discriminate even before the State has tax advantages. She hoped to retire on her rentals, but now works to support them. Public hearing was closed. Ms. Miller urged the council hear those that came to testify. She said they would continue to meet and hear testimony in the task force as they had since March. The meeting should be called informational since they have had extremely valuable public input since March. She felt that every time council held a public hearing, there would be a new flock of people who would say that they did not know and notice was too short. Mr. Obie agreed to hear the people. Ms. Schue agreed also. Public hearing was reopened. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 16 "" . Frank Sparrow, 1568 West 24th Place, said the whole meeting was biased against the public. Twenty-five percent of the houses have water under them. How can they be insulated? He objected to waiting two hours to testify. Jim Britton, 245 West 25th, said if financing was not available the ordinance should not be a fact. He objected to the discrimination against the non-elec- trical home heaters. He said buyers will not pay the insulation costs. If $30 million is put out for insulation, the City will attract insulation contractors like a dead fish attracts flies. They may not be honest. The utilities should hire a contractor. Allen Whittington, 585 Oakway Road, was against mandatory weatherization. New energy houses may not last without free air flow due to dry rot. He proposed EWEB computer to tell the BTU's average use per day. People turn down the thermostats. Why should they be fined? He urged more public hearings. Don Kimmel, 3105 Lincoln, said the council had been told investor-owners would not weatherlze. In a survey by the Oregon Housing Reporter, 10.4 percent replied voluntarily to the survey; 94 percent said they would voluntarily weatherize if offered a property tax exemption; 81 percent said they would weatherize their rental units if offered an increase in State tax credits of $125 per unit. He was opposed to the penalties involved in the mandatory part of the ordinance. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President, has been following this issue and supports weatherlzatlon. She was aware of only two previous meetings; one did not take . testimony. She questioned EWEB's survey since she was included in the survey but did not have to weatherize her home. In the follow-up, she wrote that she was not going to weatherize her home. She objected to the mandatory aspect of the ordinance and having the hearing on December 22. She objected to the appeal procedures. She asked for postponement. Don Morris, 140 Ruby Lane, has weatherized his home. He supported weatheriza- tion. He did not support mandatory anything. Earl McElhan~, 1717 Centennial, President of the Eugene-Springfield Rental Owners Assoclation, understood that the final ordinance came out on December 11, 1980. They had not had time to study the ordinance and give their input. He asked for more time since it will affect their income. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Obie spoke in favor of postponing the ordinance because the ordinance needs public support if it is going to happen. To acquire public support, it needs to be understood. The disposition of the elderly and low-income should be considered further with thought and understanding about how they will be treated. An automatic review should financing not become available should be talked about. Ms. Smith supported Mr. Obie's comments. She thought additional public input was important. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 17 I Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to postpone further . discussion and action on this item until a meeting in January. Mr. Delay recalled the retreat and the initial discussions of the council. He said they did not want to wait to see what the State and Federal government would do, but to see what they could do in a cost-effective way. Something fair to everyone. Something internal to the, community. At that time, they recog- nized that the essential elements of the program would 'be a mandatory program. A non-mandatory program would have the fate of other programs. They do not work. What will happen is that the people who say they are in favor of weather- ization and against mandatory measures will create an environment in which citizens who can afford to and do not want to bother to weatherize force higher costs on those who have volunteered to try to conserve the consumption of energy, penalizing those who are trying to do the best job. They recognized that they would have to involve everyone. A massive lead time of four years enables that to be accomplished. Mr. Delay was totally in favor of the ordinance. The technical details brought up at the public hearing were not new. They had been covered and debated. The City has already done more than usual to get the word out. The ordinance makes sense. He did not feel holding it over would accomplish very much. Ms. Miller was not opposed to waiting a few weeks if it would avoid divisive- ness. She doubted they would learn more or have different points raised in public hearing. If it builds community consensus, it would be all right with her. A lot of' the points heard have answers. She urged that the next meeting have answers available. She was willing to set up a date on that basis. Mr. Lieuallen was ambivalent about the motion. Further hearings would be for . political reasons. They have heard the testimony before. Holding over for a specific purpose, such as review of financing, could be a different matter. There is no doubt about the weatherization being a good thing. Mandatory is the problem. He objected to the testimony against mandating. The council re~ognized the importance of weatherization. He observed there was testimony from people outside the city, who would not be affected in the least by the ordinance. He was willing to support holding the ordinance over although he would not be a part of future discussions. He would support the motion to maintain consensus on a very important issue. Ms. Schue was willing to hold it over, but was uncomfortable with the situation. She would not change her mind. She would vote for the ordinance. She will explain why nothing she would hear from the public would change her point of view. She was not eager to hold more public hearings. Council had heard everything possible on this issue. She did, however, need to explain why she supported the ordinance. Mr. Obie supported Mr. Lieuallen1s comments. The only need was political and educational. He hesitated to have the ordinance tainted. He felt sorry that Mr. Delay1s and Mr. Lieuallen's work would not come to fruition. Their work and assistance has brought the ordinance along this far. Mr. Henry suggested the next meeting on the ordinance be held February 9, 1981. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 18 . . Ms. Smith proposed February 9, 1981, as the public hearing date and with the agreement of the second, included it in her motion. Mr. Delay moved, seconded by Ms. Mill er, to amend the or i gin a 1 motion to restrict the scope of public hearing to the technical merits of the ordinance. He said the amendment would essentially put the council on record as favoring a mandatory conservation program. Mr. Lieuallen objected to the amendment. He felt it would muddy the situation. He said it was a vote of inclination; a vote of action on a specific part of the ordinance. He could not support it. Mr. Delay, in the interest of keeping a unanimous record on the ordinance, withdrew his amendment. Motion to postpone further discussion and action on this item until February 9, 1981, carried unanimously. C. Consideration of Proposed Building Division Ordinances/Resolution: (memo and ordinance distributed) With the agreement of council, Mr. Henry read the ordinances by council bill numbers only. . 1. Adopting the International Conference of Building Officials' Uniform Administrative Code with certain modifications, additions, and deletions, etc.; CB 2235--An ordinance adopting the International Conference of Building Officials' Uniform Administrative Code with certain modifications, additions, and deletions; repealing Sections 8.030, 8.031, 8.032, 8.033, 8.085, 8.090, 8.095, 8.100, 8.105, 8.110, 8.115, 8.120, 8.125, 8.130, 8.415, 8.420, 8.425, 8.430, 8.440, 8.445, 8.500, 8.505, 8.560, 8.561, 8.562, 8.563, 8.564, 8.565, 8.567, 8.569, 8.570, and 8.572 of the Eugene Code, 1971; amending Sections 3.005, 3.010, 3.283, 8.005, 8.007, 8.008 of that code; adding new Sections 8.004 and 8.005 to that code; 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 2235 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. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18742. . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 19 . 2. Adopting the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code and Fire . and Life Safety Code with certain modifications, additions, and deletions, etc.; CB 2236--An ordinance adopting the State of Oregon Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Code with certain modifications, additions, and deletions, repealing Sections 8.010, 8.015, and 8.025 of the Eugene Code, 1971; renumbering and amending Sections 8.020 and 8.026 of that code; ,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. Ro 11 call vote. Motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2236 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. Ro 11 call vote. All counc i lors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18743. 3. Adopting the State of Oregon Mechanical Specialty Code and Mechan- ical Fire and Life Safety Code, etc.; CB 2237--An ordinance adopting the State of Oregon Mechanical Specialty . Code and Mechanical Fire and Life Safety Code; amending Section 8.495 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieual1en, 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 2237 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. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All counc il ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18744. 4. Pmending Section 2.013 of the Eugene Code CB 2238--An ordinance concerning City boards; amending Section 2.013 of the Eugene Code, 1971; 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 2238 was read the second time by council bill number only. . MINUTES--Eugene' City Council' December 22, 1980 Page 20 ~ Ms. smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be . approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All counc il ors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18745. 5. Amending Resolution No. 3324 by adding Sections 9 and 10; estab- lishing fees in conjunction with inspections not covered by plan review and permit fees, etc. Res. No. 3457--A resolution amending Resolution No. 3324; establishing fees in connection with inspections not covered by plan review or permit fees~ and providing for an effective date. Ms. Snith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Roll call vote. Motion carried unanimously. II. ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING A. Street Vacation Located at 29th Place Between Willamette Street and Oak Street (Krumdieck, Inc.) (SV 80-1) (map distributed) Mr. Henry explained the payment has been worked out with the developer. The developer paid $10,355 in fees and the ordinance has been changed to provide the retention of a bikeway and a fire access easement, which are necessary. . CB 2190--An ordinance authorizing vacation of a 50-foot-wide street ,- located at 29th Place between Willamette Street and Oak Street. Ms. Snith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ro 11 call vote. All counc il or s present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18746. III. CONDEMNATION AUTHORIZATION--EASEMENT FOR EAST BANK INTERCEPTOR (memo, map distributed) Mr. Henry introduced the bill and noted the presence of Don Gilman to answer questions. CB 2239--An ordinance authorizing the institution of proceedings in eminent domain for the acquisition by condemnation of a permanent easement for the expansion of the Willakenzie sanitary sewer pump station and construction of the East Bank Interceptor sewer from the existing Springfield treatment plant to the proposed regional treatment plant; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Snith 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 . tjme. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 21 ,. ~ . . Council Bill 2239 was read the second time by council bill number only. . Ms. In ith 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 18747. IV. CONSIDERATION OF WEST SKINNER BUTTE RIVERFRONT PARK ACQUISITION memo, ma d i stn buted Mr. Henry explained the few acres are being acquired by the Parks Department as part of the Skinner Butte Riverfront Park acquisition program. It is being sold .by the Highway Department as part of the Roosevelt freeway access~ It has been planned and is the latest acquisition in the Riverfront program. Ms. ~ ith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieual1en, to approve expendi- tures for purchase of State property located off Fir Lane and Thomason Lane for park use. Mr. Obie asked if the property was on the river. He asked for a delay, since he had questions about it. Mr. Drape1a explained that they had been asked by the State to close on this before the end of the year. It has been in negotiations for two years. Initi- ally, they were negotiating on four parcels. They have closed on two parcels. This is the last and the culmination of the Riverfront Park program. It is .- important to take advantage of land available, not through condemnation. It is one of 25 parcels that have given 65 acres along the 2.5-mile stretch of river. - It has been in process for seven years. They have one parcel outstanding. Mr. Obie asked if the original serial levy was to pay for this. Mr. Drapela said it was approved in the original plan. Ms. Miller noted that this parcel would assist substantially with access to the park. Motion carried unanimously. V. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL JUDGEIS EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (memo and amendments distributed) Mr. Henry explained that this is a rate increase retroactive to July 1, 1980. It has undergone considerable negotiations. The result of not acting on this would hold up other judgesl salaries. It is now worked out and is for the current fiscal year. Res. No. 3426--A resolution authorizing execution of amendments to the Municipal Judge's employnent contract. Ms. ~ ith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua11en, to adopt the reso1u- . tion. Ro 11 call vote. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 22 :~ '.j~- " I VI. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed) l~ Res. No. 3458--A resolution authorizing paynent of bills, claims, and .,.41 progress pa)ments for the period December 8, 1980, through December 22, 1980. Ms. m ith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion. Ib 11 call vote. Motion carried unanimously. VI I. APPROVAL OF ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT {memo dlstrlbuted) Mr. Henry called attention to the memo regarding his future emplo,nent. After 850 to 870 council meetings, he was anticipating doing something else. Ms. m ith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to execute the agreement necessary for Charles T. Henry to work for the US Department of Housing and Urban Deve 1 opn ent. Motion carried unanimously. After gifts were distributed to departing councilors and the City Manager by Mr. Obie, the meeting was adjourn~d,~. " " ~ ~ R~,~iJfl~~"'~ 2f~p~ / '~p 74/ ~ M'Chi7'; 'Gl~^// ...//~'~~~~ 1 a'( ~e'as:on ~~ -~ City Manager If ,.- -.\, , '. (Recorded by Beth Conant) BC:so/CM27a1 ~ ~ "\ ~., " '"\ "'it"'" ..... .'.-:," . ,..~'~ ".", y . MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 22, 1980 Page 23