Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1981 Meeting (2) - e e M I NUT E S Eugene City Council City Council Chamber February 9, 1981 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Smith, Mark Lindberg, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, Emily Schue, Cynthia Wooten. Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by his Honor Mayor Gus Keller. I. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Weatherization Ordinance Mayor Keller welcomed those who had come to testify and because of the large numbers, he extended testimony time to 30/30 minutes. Micheal Gleason, the City Manager, introduced Greg Page, Technology Coordinator. Mr. Page described the ordinance, the events that occurred since the December 22 hearing, and the proposed changes. Council was briefed on the ordinance December 17 and conducted a public hearing on December 22. The ordinance would become effec- tive in 1985 as part of the Housing Code. Inspections by EWEB would occur at the time a request for change of service is received. Agreement for the inspections was itemized in a letter of agreement signed by the general managers. During these inspections EWEB would not be in a position to inspect any other housing code violation. Violations would not affect the utility service. All measures would be financed with the program that had already been adopted by the EWEB board. There is a 6-1/2 percent State loan program available today for owner- occupied dwellings. The measures do not affect lifestyle but consist of attic, floor, water heater, and heating duct insulation, and are dependent on an energy analysis. Costs to an 1,100-square-foot home have been estimated at approximately $1,500. Annual savings for an electrically space-heated home would be $134; oil, $235; and natural gas, $176. The Energy Conservation Policy Board found that conservation would be cheaper than new generation which is estimated by EWEB to be five cents or more per kilowatt-hour. Based on providing direct grants to homeowners or investor-owned properties, the floor insulation at R-19, the cost versus the amount of energy recovered is approximately three cents per ki lowatt-hour. At the public hearing on December 22, 1981, there was agreement by the audi- ence that: 1) there is a long-term energy supply problem in this community; 2) weatherization is a good way to recover energy; and 3) other sectors of the community should be examined. There was disagreement on a number of issues including: 1) the role of government in conservation; 2) a concern that the EWEB financing program would not come into being and the council would not rescind MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 1 e the ordinance; and 3) landlords and renters disagreed over the success of voluntary implementation. Rental housing has posed the most difficult conser- vation dilemma to the Energy Board with the problem compounded by tight cash flow of landlords, high tenant turnover, and landlord/tenant conflicts. During the hearing, staff mentioned the renters stated that landlords would not volun- tarily weatherize. Landlords countered that they would weatherize if financing were available. e As a result of the public hearing, the ordinance now contains a requirement for automatic council review one year before implementation to review the success of voluntary implementation and the availability of financing. Council has played a key role in developing the current financing program. The ECPB held a public hearing last spring and used Mr. Ray Wiley's concept of an energy bank. Those people who had already weatherized would share in the energy bank. Council presented testimony to the EWEB Hearings Officer, which improved the program by making it: 1) retroactive to May 22nd; 2) 0 percent interest; and 3) cost- effective compared to new generation. The council approved unanimously reso- lution No. 3371 which went on record to support the RCS Financing Program and has gone on record in the past to improve the financing program. With the passage of the Northwest Power Bill, staff continues to work to develop an improved conservation program to be extended to large apartment complexes and small businesses. EWEB advised that the RCS Program had been adopted by the board and as the board changes it will go before the full board. Another item the council would review in 1984 would be the cost and supply of energy. At that time it would be required to consider the creation of a specific appeals process, during which individuals could be granted exemptions when the measures were not cost-effective or created unsafe conditions (including but not limited to moisture buildup, fire hazards, or indoor air pollution) or financial hardship, or if it could be proven that performance of a building would be equal to or better than if it was weatherized. The specific appeal process was not included in the ordinance at this time because it would have to be changed over the next four years. The City would be responsible for developing a specific appeals process to be considered one year before the ordinance would go into effect. Since the public hearing, several things have occurred. President Reagan removed price controls from petroleum products so the price would undoubtedly rise and encourage even more conservation. Some banks have reinstated the 6-1/2 percent loan program. And on January 21, 1981, the Federal government mandated utilities, such as EWEB, to develop an audit program for large apartment build- ings and small businesses. EWEB is planning to hire a person to develop this program in the spring. Several councilors have visited a variety of individual groups such as the Rental Owners Association, who raised several good points regarding the appeals process and financing. Concerns were addressed by requir- ing that council re-examine the ordinance one year before it would go into effect. A letter from the Rental Owners Association and an alternative ordinance from Nora Johnson had been received and distributed. The alternative ordinance: 1) required that financing in the form of outright grants be available before the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 2 ordinance went into effect; 2) removed the code from definitions of sub-standard buildings; and 3) removed the requirement of floor insulation, replacing it with a definition that it be cost-effective. Staff believed that the council review 4It in 1984 would achieve the same goals. Mr. Page invited Jean Reeder, Conservation Manager for EWEB, to present the financing programs that were on the drawing board and the outcome of discussions with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). e e Ms. Reeder advised that EWEB, in a formal opinion taken on February 2, 1981, unanimously supported the passage of the proposed weatherization standards for existing housing built prior to 1974, with an effective date of January 1, 1985, and a review of weatherization accomplished by 1984. The board commended the council for diligently pursuing a solution to a very difficult problem. The council and EWEB still have a challenge to develop the information and implemen- tation procedures to ensure the efficient use of energy and continued favorable low rates for all electricity users. EWEB is in the process of clarifying legal authority to lend credit for weatherization. The adopted RCS Plan proposes to offer low- and no-interest loans to all EWEB customers for cost-effective weatherization. All of the proposed standards presently being considered fall well within the cost-effective criteria developed by EWEB. Since the passage of the regional bill, the BPA has distributed eight proposed conservation programs for review and comment. As a result, EWEB may be in a position to offer a more attractive financing program and is presently working with other publicly owned utilities in the Northwest to negotiate with BPA to achieve the best cost advan- tage for customers over the next 20 years. The preliminary program proposed by BPA would include a reimbursement of 16.7 cents per kilowatt-hour of first-year savings for conservation achieved by each of the measures to be mandated by the ordinance. The method for determining the savings, the calculation for heat lost, the standards for implementation, the accounting procedures, conservation measures installed, and the changing level of cost-effectiveness, based on the changing cost of new resources, all have yet to be determined. If it can be assumed that the Federal DOE-approved RCS calculations are acceptable then, on a typical 1,100-square-foot home, the BPA reimbursement would pay outright almost every measure being considered. Based on first-year savings at 16.7 percent per kilowatt-hour, BPA would: 1) reimburse the total cost of contractor-installed R-38 in the ceiling when none existed prior to installation; 2) reimburse the total cost of R-19 floor insulation plus a vapor barrier where none existed prior to installation; 3) reimburse the total cost of duct insulation and caulk- ing (materials or contractor-installed cost); and 4) reimburse for the cost of materials for weatherstripping. It is anticipated that contract negotiations with BPA will take three to six months and would determine the level of reimurse- ment for conservation and the program necessary for EWEB to obtain funds. At the end of contract negotiations, EWEB should be able to determine the most favorable weatherization financing program to offer customers. Mr. Lindberg asked when negotiations would begin and was advised by Ms. Reeder that contract negotiations would begin on February 24th. Ms. Schue wanted to know if the BPA program applied to all EWEB customers. Ms. Reeder responded that the pro- posed 16.7 cents per kilowatt-hour would be for electric space heating only. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 3 Public hearing was opened. ~ Speaking in favor of the ordinance: Mariam Russell, 1185 West 13th Avenue, said that since the last public hearing she had heard a number of criticisms but appreciated what was being done. As a senior citizen she wanted the council to know that elderly citizens were affected by poor weatherization and the issue of energy conservation was not just a "young person's cause". Kevin McGraw, 778 Elm Drive, residential building contractor, said the main reason to support the ordinance was economics. Voluntary conservation measures were not working fast enough. Concerning air pollution, many people have wood heaters for which the need would be less if their houses were adequately weather- ized. Renters in particular would be beneficiaries of the ordinance, as they have no control of the energy-efficiency of their homes. John Craig, 2042 Washington, represented the Eugene Mayor's Senior Citizen Advisory Committee who had given consideration to and were in favor of the proposed ordinance. Cost-effectiveness was imperative in terms of producing new energy if a conservation program was not entered into. The mandatory provisions were not punitive and not applicable to many senior citizens who lived in their own homes. During the next four years the committee would interpret, educate, and advocate for weatherization on a voluntary basis. e Dan Goldrich, 2262 Birch Lane, appreciated the opportunity to support such an ordinance instead of waiting for the worst of the fuel crisis. The Federal government and energy corporations are committed to an inflationary, highly centralized energy provision. Inflation of the necessities tends to run 40 to 50 percent higher than overall inflation. The ordinance is a first step towards deflation. A long lead time in hardship cases and low-interest loans will be a good deal. Alan Evans, 2449 Riverview, real estate agent, said one of the arguments against the ordinance was that the cost of weatherization would not be paid back at the time of sale. New buyers of existing houses were now taking a good look at weatherization improvements. The costs would not only be paid back in energy savings but also in the resale of the house. John VanLandingham, 2207 Harris, a lawyer for low-income tenants, said he knew a number of tenants who had run into high electrical bills. The argument that tenants will not rent houses that are not energy-efficient is not true, espe- cially if they cannot afford to move. Federal assistance exists for energy bills but is often used up during the first two months of winter. The ordinance does not go far enough for tenants, as it only covers four units or less. The weatherization ordinance would not be enforceable through the State Landlord- Tenant Act. Council should work with EWEB to make sure that financing packages were sensitive to all lower-income elderly owners and tenants. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 4 e e e Sarah Hendrickson, 1306 Adams, EWEB board member, spoke about the word "manda- tory", WhlCh brlngs up lmages of more government interference. Governments are already involved in energy issues. She had been impressed by the way EWEB was keeping its independence and local control. Two issues were clear: 1) the price of BPA electricity is going up; 2) shortly there will not be enough to go around~ In the proposed ordinance, "mandatory" simply ensures that a person does not weatherize his/her house while neighbors leak valuable kilowatts out of their ceiling. The ordinance would be one first, small step toward keeping control of Eugene's future energy situation in Eugene. Sam Sadler, 1991 Columbia, pointed out that the ordinance was equitable because the alternative would be a higher cost to all for future generations. Tenants fear that landlords would use the ordinance as an excuse to raise rents, but landlords should not have to raise the rents any more than what the tenants would benefit from weatherization. In conclusion, he thought that the ordinance was excellent but too modest, and those who are suggesting that Eugene do less are really suggesting that it do nothing. Daniel Anderson, 2522 Van Ness, a member of the Progressive Alliance, spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance. Energy conservation is the quickest short-term solution to the problem. The measures proposed are simple, cost-effective, and reasonable, and will insulate our community from energy price inflation. There will always be those who oppose any attempt for a community to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Passage of the ordinance would be a wel- come signal to Eugene that it is finally serious about energy conservation. Jerry Rust, 2410 Madison, Lane County Commissioner, gave his suppor,t on the weatherization ordinance. On the question of mandatory standards, he believed that the American people were ready for conservation but it is important that the standards be fair and equitable. In his opinion, these standards were fair and equitable. The time lapse of five years is more than reasonable. Further- more, though some would decry the mandatory nature of these provisions, others are equally vehement in objecting to the mandatory nature of financing new and more costly generating facilities. If we have to be mandatory, it should be on the side of conservation. The second point is the very direct relationship between energy conservation and air quality here at the upper end of the Willam- ette Valley. Even homes that are not electrically heated must be weatherized if we are to preserve the air quality in this valley. Specifically, wood heaters are taking up an increased share of the airshed. It is imperative that we move forward with weatherization for all homes so that not as much particulate matter is put into the atmosphere. Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams, spoke on behalf of the Executive Board, Whiteaker Community Council, and said that the ordinance had been supported by the commu- nity council since its inception. Janice Bohman, 690 West Broadway, is a renter concerned with the energy situation in general. She believes in conservation and weatherization but as a renter there was only a limited amount that she could do, as her landlord had a wait-and- see attitude. Passage of the ordinance was urged. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 5 e e e Phil Ritter, 2760 Riverview, CPA, advised that he had taken advantage of the slx-percent bank weatherization loan program and was convinced that Eugene should not spend its money building new power ,plants or damming up the few wild rivers that are left. The ordinance represents a significant beginning to do something before the Federal government gets involved. Dan Solitz, 892 Sprague, said he participated as a private citizen in the State's activities for redefining a power standard. Out of the discussions came agreement that all energy facility development resulted in environmental degra- dation and energy conservation could be considered a resource. The Oregon Department of Energy is developing programs to monitor conservation by State, city, and person. If a community was wasteful, this could find its way into the State's legislature, and conservation would be done at the Federal level. He suggested that Eugene pass the ordinance before the Federal government became involved. Gary Gillespie, 2018 Orchard, spoke on behalf of Tom Anderson, Eugene Neighbor- hood Leaders Association, who supports the ordinance but felt that the ordinance should be expanded to commercial and industrial sites as well as larger develop- ments above four units. Sallie Edmunds, 1172 West 5th Avenue, represented the Board of Directors, Willamette Valley Solar Energy Association, who strongly support the ordinance. Almost 50 percent of the homes in the community are rentals and there is little incentive for landlords to weatherize since most renters pay their own utili- ties. Over 10 percent of Oregon homes do not have ceiling insulation. Eugene can ill afford to waste and create a necessity for development of expensive energy sources. Voluntary weatherization and tax incentives have failed to produce substantial results. There is little choice but to make conservation mandatory. Scott Lieuallen, 1054 Van Buren, Lane County Commissioner, was proud to have been a part of the council when the priorities were established. Two of the council's chief concerns at the time he was on the council were: 1) how to educate the citizens; and 2) mandatory versus voluntary. Some people thought the issue was too difficult and should be abandoned. Due to the efforts of staff and the EWEB Board, other communities will look to Eugene as a model and for leadership. Joe Weiner, 1640 McKinley, spoke as a renter who recently moved from an older duplex because of inadequate heat and weatherization. He had been uncomfortable and felt that this was an important issue that had been overlooked. The owner was not willing to weatherize as he would not see a return on his investment. Mandatory weatherization would be the only solution. Speaking against the proposal: Dick Booth, PO Box 2575, thought personal economics should dictate whether or not individuals weatherize their house. Why should Eugene save part to be used in some other city that was not conserving energy? The proposed ordinance goes against past philosophy of the community. It is financially imprudent to use MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 6 e bonded investments to fund any projects other than capital construction. He found the ordinance to be a continuation of making it more expensive to live in this city and creating fewer jobs. The residents should not be saddled with further bonding. The rate payer should decide. Frank Sparrow, 1568 West 24th Place, said that if the council took dictational powers and enacted laws which would cause loss of constitutional rights, some- thing should be done. He added that it was the lack of siding that was causing the greatest heat loss. ' The code relating to bathroom fans that vented into attics was also at fault. Fred Mercier, 2443 North 16th, Springfield, owner of a rental property in Eugene, approved of weatherization to a degree but objected to a part of the ordinance that said a building would become substandard, be ordered vacated, and closed. Bob Wucherpfennig, 3040 Alder, retired citizen, spoke on behalf of other retirees in his neighborhood who were worried about what would happen to their homes. He added that six different salespersons had knocked on his door in the last ten days, one of whom said it would cost $6,000 to insulate the house. He under- stood the oifficulties of the Mayor and council in dealing with the public, but that he should be honest in saying that the ordinance would befoul the city. He cautioned that overinsulation could be a health hazard as well as poisonous insulation. e Jerry Fogelson, 70 East 23rd Avenue, said the rush to an ordinance was obvious. The issues and questions being deferred until 1984 should be addressed before and not after passage: 1) the appeal and relief procedure should be spelled out beforehand and made a part of the ordinance; and 2) the economic impact of the ordinance should be fully assessed. The term "cost-effective" had been based on a lot of misleading cost estimates. The ordinance should factor into costs: a) direct and indirect financing costs of making money available at no or low interest over the life of the program; b) escalating costs of materials, labor, and implementing the program over the period of its existence; c) potential savings by voluntary efforts; and d) substantial indirect or hidden costs for the work of the bureacrats who will continue to work on the ordinance. This is a well-intentioned program that forgets that economic forces will get weatheri- zation done. Allen Miller, 1251 Brookside Drive, wondered what other alternatives the council had looked at. He said that commercial and residential property owners waste electricity as well when purchasing video recorders, etc. The Oregon Consti- tution does not say that council can put individuals into debt. In 1968 EWEB invested in two nuclear plants but only Trojan was built. The legality of EWEB's financial investment in a plant was questioned as well as the council doing business for EWEB. Another concern was that a council member had indicated that he/she had already made up his/her mind after the December 22 hearing. As elected officials, they should hear both sides before making a decision. Finally, he cautioned about future class action suits. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 7 tit Stanley Greenfield, 2056 Orchard, spoke against the mandatory aspect of the ordinance. He found the arguments in the memorandum about including oil and gas invalid. He concluded that the City might also face individual suits from people who became sick as a result of too-tight weatherization procedures. Don Read, 815 Doris, said he was really in favor of the ordinance. He suggested filling the attic and crawl spaces with insulation; make all ceilings 7'6"; ban split-level houses; eliminate picture windows; make all doors 3'6" high; no one person should have more than 300 square feet of house; give tax credit to fami- lies having six or more in an 1,100-square-foot house. This would be paid for by a no-interest EWEB loan. The more plants not built, the more money saved-- maybe 20 percent--but with BPA's proposed 16 percent, then all electricity bills would be 36 percent off. Finally, it is known that cars use less gas going downhill, so all houses would have to be built with streets sloping down. The question of how to get back would have to be worked out by the council, who had come up with sillier ideas than these. Earl McElhany, 2797 Burlington, Springfield, representing the Rental Owners Association of Eugene/Springfield, read a letter addressed to Mr. Page and council members that spoke to four issues: e. 1. City Code violations due to noncompliance status: The ordinance does not define when noncompliance status begins (except after January 1, 1985). Inc~on of a section describing the enforcement procedures and an allowable grace period (say 90 days) to inform the property owner and for him to remedy the violation (please refer to page 2, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Energy Conservation Policy Board's initial discussion on March 5, 1980). 2. Excluded property: If weatherization is as good as you say, then the City should at least commit itself to a course of action to ensure all unweatherized properties are required to weatherize after January 1~ 1985. The City will have almost four years to enact ordinances cover- ing commercial, industrial, governmental, and residential properties of five or more units. If all properties are not subject to a manda- tory requirement by January 1, 1985, then mandatory weatherization of residential units of four or less units shall not become effective until such time all properties are covered by mandatory weatherization. 3. Appeals process: The ordinance does not require the establishment of an appeals process to handle special cases. The ordinance only says the City Council shall"review and consider." An appeals process should be a requirement before weatherization becomes mandatory and should consider disputes over cost-effective improvements, unsafe conditions that will result from the improvements, and exemptions to property owners where demonstrable financial hardships result. 4. Financing: The ordinance presupposes the availability of EWEB non- interest or low-interest financing to the property owner. Mandatory weatherization should not be required unless there is available non-interest, low-interest, grant or rate-base financing from EWEB, 1\ e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 8 e e - Bonneville Power Administration, State or Federal sources. It is one thing to weatherize only one living unit from your own pocketbook but to have to do five, ten, 20 or more units is quite a different matter. Laura Johnson, 1810 Fairmount Boulevard, joint owner of rental property in Eugene, as the newsletter editor of the Rental Owners Association, had sent out a questionnaire with 20 responses which showed: 24.2 percent of the units have R-19 or better; 26.1 percent have from R-ll to R-19; 48.5 percent have some insulation; and 1.2 percent have no ceiling insulation. She added that it was more likely that commercial buildings were the greatest source of heat loss. Many of the landlords had only a few rental properties, were retired, and were lacking in funds. Eugene had no right to impose such expenditures. The ordinance should not be passed until it contained exemptions and provisions for appeals. Although numerous individuals had not spoken yet, the allocated 30 minutes were up; public hearing was closed. Mayor Keller ruled that ten more minutes would be devoted to further testimony. Public hearing was reopened. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President, asked if councilors Wooten and Lindberg were on the board of the Progressive Alliance as there might be a conflict of interest. They responded that they were members of the steering committee. She also said that Whiteaker Energy (a private corporation) had helped form the ordinance and one of the members of the Johnson firm worked with them. Again, maybe a con- flict of interest. She felt that the language of the ordinance was too broad and could present problems to future councilors. Other objections concerned the availability of funds and that the electrical users would be paying for the benefit of the few. Jo Lu Roberts, 2775 Friendly, businesswoman and citizen, thanked Mayor Keller for extending the time and advised that one of her businesses provided weatheri- zation, finish carpentry, and painting. She viewed the ordinance as a council's implementation of the Whiteaker community's self-reliance program which was a corporation with a development arm called NEDCO. A 4-J school document stated that Whiteaker Energy, Inc., projected a sales volume of $550,000 in the first year and one of the first contracts would be to weatherize homes involved in the East Blair Housing Project. She objected strongly, said there were definite conflicts of interest, and suggested: 1) open biddings; 2) feasibility study of possible health hazards; and 3) a contested case hearing. Dave Simon, 351 Clark, #1, chose not to testify. Lee Carey, 1370 Jay Street, economist, suggested that if the ordinance was passed, Eugene would be used as a classic example of how to not interfere with the economy. Energy was a scarce and valuable resource which had to be allocated appropriately or there would be waste and a shrinking of the economic pie. Insu- lation is good but all people do not have enough money to buy it. The council is making the same mistake people have made for centuries by not understanding the market forces, what determines value, and what increases people's standard of living. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 9 e :'e - Donna Turring, 115 Oakway, had spoken to a number of neighbors who had been advised during an audit that R-30 insulation was not cost-effective. Eugene's climate was not one of the coldest in the nation. She did not believe that people wanted a hidden tax of one to two thousand dollars in their homes as well as an increased EWEB rate if the bond measure went through. George Adams, 4970 West Hillside Drive, said there was a grave technical error in the proposed ordinance. It was proposed to spend twice as much on floor insulation than attic insulation. The average winter ground temperature in Eugene was 51.8 degrees and the average well-constructed home had a floor temperature of 62 degrees when the thermostat was set at 65 degrees. Potential savings would be low. He also objected to houses becoming substandard if not weatherized to the mandatory standards. An engineering economist consultant should be hired before passing a poorly designed ordinance. Don Bartram, 2380 Garfield, landlord, advised that although his tenants had never asked him to weatherize, all of his units had been weatherized. This was done in order to keep good tenants who could also afford to pay the rent. He believed in letting the market find its place. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Page addressed some of the issues raised and pointed out that as much public input as possible had been sought over the last nine months. Substantial input had been received from the Rental Owners Association and the Chamber of Commerce. The key issue is whether mandatory measures are necessary. It is believed that most people, including investors, will weatherize when financing becomes avail- able. Those who do not are hurting the rest of the community and some believe that the community has a right to ensure that resources are not wasted. Each of the measures, according to expert testimony, were the most cost-effective com- pared to new generation and those who are raising objections had an opportunity to testify at that time. It was the position of the Energy Conservation Policy Board that there was no incentive for landlords to weatherize and even though figures were encouraging to some, a large number of investor-owned properties still need to be weatherized, with tenants having no recourse other than to move. A more pertinent question asked was whether financing would be available. Council and EWEB staff have worked hard to ensure that it is and will be equi- table to all in the community. There is no evidence to believe that EWEB would not develop a financing program which has been submitted as part of a Federally mandated program. Future items for staff to pursue are: 1) to work with Rental Owners Association to develop appeals process before review date; 2) to work with EWES to incorporate investors' concerns and financing program (RCS or BPA contract); and 3) to work with the Mayor's Senior Citizen Committee to develop educational programs. A need was also seen for the council to continue its commitment to the Energy Policy Board to expand to other sectors such as commer- cial and small businesses. A grant has been received and a program is being developed in the small business sector. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 10 . Ms. Schue asked for a response on the health question and was advised by Mr. Page that these include: 1) off-gassing from man-made materials; and 2) natural gas pollutants and by-products. Measurements are being monitored at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. Health hazards occur in buldings that are extremely tight but no evidence has been seen in super-insulated new homes and the houses that complied with the proposed code. The council review in 1984 would ensure that there were no health hazards. Ms. Wooten responded to the conflict of interest question and had been advised by Mr. Long, City Attorney, that belonging to non-profit associations or corpo- rations does not constitute a conflict of interest. Mr. Long concurred. Mr. Lindberg asked for a staff response to a suggestion from the Rental Owners Association that code violatiorr processes be modified. Mr. Long responded that the proposed ordinance becomes part of the housing code and follows the same process of notice and hearing before an order of compliance is entered. Mr. Lindberg asked if there was discretion and leeway in the amount of time given and was advised by Mr. Page that the period of notice has varied, depending on the severity of the conditions. e Ms. Smith said the question was raised about possible errors and the need for technical advice on insulation standards for floors and ceilings. Mr. Page said that the standards were proposed and circulated last spring. . 'EWEB considers them cost-effective and will finance them. The process does include an appeals process and a person could challenge the EWEB inspector and forward it to the City. Mr. Obie asked staff to directly address R-30 in the ceiling. Mr. Page responded that R-30 was the equivalent to 9-1/2 inches of fiberglass batts. The cost to EWEB of adding R-30 to no insulation is a three-cents-per-kilowatt-hour saving over the life of the structure compared to the cost of new generation of five cents per kilowatt hour. Mr. Obie asked why R-19 wasn't used. Mr. Page said that R-11 was cheaper and cost-effective but R-30 remained substantially more cost-effective than new generation and was required by the State Building Code. Mr. Obie asked for the amortization period of insulating at R-30 and was advised that for materials only and adding R-30 to a currently uninsulated attic it was less than one year, and for a contractor, two years. Mr. Lindberg asked if precedents existed in other areas of the code for having an appeals process. Mr. Long advised that most regulatory ordinances are accom- panied by an appeals process to the council level. The process required would be an appeal of an inspector's decision to the building board of appeals and then to the council. Mr. Lindberg specifically addressed the concern of more bureacratic waste and asked whether the appeals board would be made up of citi- zens. Mr. Long responded affirmatively. Mr. Obie commented that during his involvement with the energy board and ordi- . nance, he had been intrigued with mandatory weatherization because of the offsetting costs relative to the building of new generation plants. If the ordinance passed, this community would spend approximately $25 million weather- izing homes, but to create that amount of energy $75 million to $100 million - MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9 Page 11 e e . would have to be spent. It is important to take advantage of this and the conservation prescribed is of substantial savings to the community. EWEB approached the city for assistance eighteen months ago and advised of future power shortages in the mid-1980's. EWEB has indicated that conservation is the cheapest way to approach this problem. There will be a hearing required in 1984 and continued approval is based on a financing program being available. There is a need to go further to include commercial properties. Mr. Wiley was con- sulted by Mr. Obie and felt that the prescripted standards fell far short of what is cost-effective. Future issues to address are: 1) the inclusion of an appeals process; and 2) the definition of non-compliance. He would vote in favor of the ordinance. Ms. Miller said work had been done on the ordinance for over a year and that she was becoming very familiar with its provisions, potential issues, and other items considered but not taken. Important points to keep in mind: 1) distri- bution and generation of electricity is a group effort; 2) generation of new electricity for Eugene would require substantial public indebtedness with higher electric rates; and 3) there is doubt as to what sort of electric genera- tion would be available and if they would be on line in time to supply adequate electricity. Faced with those facts, it did not seem enough to let the Federal government take care of it. Rather, it seemed the city could do better on a local level as a community. The plans of other cities, as well as other sources, were considered and the objections heard tonight were not new. Bureaucratic costs were taken into account. A cost of two cents per kilowatt hour for electricity would be saved through weatherization compared with five cents per kilowatt hour for new generation. The magnitude of difference overwhelms any quibbling. It has been suggested that the ordinance wait until the non-residential program is ready. There is a chance that the city is doing too little, too late, and not much chance of doing too much, too fast. The community has a commitment to provide adequate supplies of various energy forms that people can afford. There will be amendments to the ordinance which is a framework so that people know what the city expects of them in the way of residential weatheri- zation. The appeals process is, at present, automatically built into the Housing Code which can be relied upon. A better process might be worked out in the next three and a half years. It is the duty of Eugene to take a leadership position and recognize the problem before it is faced with a crisis. Ms. Wooten commented that the council was faced with a question of how future electricity would be paid for. The best option is conservation through weatheri- zation and to do this an ordinance had to be written. She supported the ordi- nance but with concerns: 1) the appeals process; 2) the ordinance is, perhaps, not equitable and should apply to all people across the board; and 3) tenants and their ability to pay for weatherization. Financing through the BPA, Section 6-A, should be encouraged as the first priority. Finally, she was heartened at the numbers of concerned citizens who participated to solve a common problem and the council will act to solve it. In 1984 the ordinance will be subject and open to change as it is tonight. Mr. Lindberg appreciated the concerns of those who testified. The council needs to address the issue further and look into commercial, industrial, and high- density housing units. Finally, it was not often that a city gets to address the energy crisis, inflation, and air quality in one cost-effective measure. He felt that the ordinance was a citizen's program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 12 . e e Ms. Schue said that at the last hearing she announced publicly that she was ready to vote. However, she was glad of the hearing in order to continue the public discussion and education process so that the people of Eugene understands the advantages of the program. It would take four years to complete the educa- tional process and it is hoped that most of the weatherization would have been done. CB 2234--An ordinance relating to housing; establishing mandatory weatheri- zation standards for existing single-family to four-plex resi- dential structures which were constructed with building permits issued prior to July 1, 1974; amending Section 8.270 and 8.305 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and declaring an effective date of January 1, 1985. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, 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. Mr. Obie said that it was not practical for all weatherization appeals to come before the council and preferred to have staff deal with the appeals process soon. He asked for an explanation of the rental owner's concerns relative to non-compliance status. Mr. Long asked that non-compliance status begins after January 1, 1985. That does not speak to the process in the Housing Code as to how enforcement or inspection occurs. Mr. Obie said that the Rental Owners Association were requiring a 90-day grace period. Mr. Long responded that this was already available within the Housing Code. Mr. Hamel said he was in favor of weatherization but not mandatory weatheri- zation. The financing was not available. He recommended postponing the ordi- nance for nine months until some direction came out of the Northwest Power Bill. He appreciated the work being done but mandatory was hard to live with. He will vote in favor of a second reading but against the ordinance. Ms. Smith said she would support the ordinance but also was concerned about the mandatory part. She encouraged the community to look at the first three years on a voluntary basis. The cost factors and high degree of need overcame her negative feelings. Ms. Wooten said she was concerned about the testimony of one elderly people being vulnerable to unscrupulous salespeople. passage of the ordinance would not be a cue to such people. that citizens contact EWEB before weatherizing. Mr. Lindberg added that regulation had been a concern at both national and local levels. He wanted to encourage projects that would assess through survey research the impact of regulation. Only part of the EWEB district would be subject to mandatory weatherization and it would be interesting to compare the districts and see to what extent the ordinance made a difference. witness concerning She hoped the She recommended MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 13 e Mayor Keller supported the ordinance and complimented the council, particularly Councilors Miller and Obie, and Mr. Page. There is an opportunity to review in four years to see if the ordinance is in the best interests of the citizens. Council Bill 2234 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. Motion carried seven to one, with Mr. Hamel voting "no"; the bill was declared passed and numbered 18757. B. Rezoning 1. Property located north of 3rd Avenue, east of Mill Street from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-1/SR Neighborhood Commercial District with Site Review procedures and a change of sign district from Industrial Sign District to Pedestrian-Auto Sign District (River Park Properties) (Z 80-33) (map distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced the application. e Bill Sloat, Planning Department, presented the staff report. The proposal was an application for a zone change of a part of River Park properties which involved a 3,200 square foot parcel in the East Butte area of Whiteaker neigh- borhood and is currently used for parking. It was presently zoned M-2 (light industrial) as are properties to the north, east, and south. The property bordering on the west is zoned C-l/SR and developed with an office complex. There are commercial, industrial, public service, and resident uses in the area. The vicinity reflects the Planning Commission and council actions over the past 20 years which have typically rezoned properties to non-industrial uses. The Metropolitan Plan and Whiteaker Plan recognize the mixture of use and identify the area as appropriate for mixed use. The Planning Commission's recommendation to adopt C-l/SR is based on evidence contained in staff notes, applicant's statement, and a recommendation of Site Review procedures. The latter was attached because of the smallness of the property and would ensure compatibility for parking and access in conjunction with the general residential character of some properties in the neighborhood. The action, if adopted, should contain a recommendation for a sign district change from Industrial to Pedestrian-Auto Di stri ct. Ms. Smith stated that she would abstain from voting as Mr. Jim Saul, who was representing the applicant, was in partnership with her husband. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, advised that he was available to answer questions. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 14 There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. e CB 2250--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from M-2 Light Industrial District to C-1/SR Neighborhood Commercial District with Site Review procedures and a change of sign district from Industrial Sign District to Pedestrian- Auto Sign District for property located north of 3rd Avenue, east of Mill Street. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that findings supporting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of December 2, 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 with Ms. Smith abstaining. Council Bill 2250 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye with Ms. Smith abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18758. 2. Property located south and west of the intersection of Sand Avenue and Country Club Road from RG Garden Apartment Residential District to RP Residential-Professional District (Chambers Development Corporation) (Z 80-30) (map distributed). e Mr. Gleason introduced the application. Mary Briggs, Planning Department, explained that the zone change request was for property located south and west of the intersection of Country Club Road and Sand Avenue, north of Delta Highway. The property consists of two tax lots totaling three acres and is developed as two single-family residential structures. The applicant, Chambers Development Corporation, is requesting a change in zone from RG Garden Apartment Residential District to RP Residential-Professional District. Current zoning was established on July 9, 1979, in concurrence with annexation. There was a November 1980 zone change for property almost immedi- ately east of the subject site. The rezoning from RG/SR to RP/SR included the westerly 2.6 acres of Tax Lot 808. Contiguous properties to the southwest and north are zoned RG/SR as are all tax lots between Country Club Road, Kearns Acre Road, and Delta Highway. Those lots are vacant or developed residentially. Property north of Country Club Road is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential and RG/SR. The R-l properties are developed in duplexes or single-family residential. Property to the east is zoned RP and RP/SR and is developed with two professional office structures. The Planning Commission originally considered the zone change on December 2, 1980, and staff recommended a denial under the three criteria of Section 9.676 of the Eugene Code. The Planning Commission discussion centered on the Metro Plan designation for the area and the effect of the realignment o~ Country Club e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 15 e Road on appropriate land use in the area. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting, the City Council had not considered or approved realignment. On Janu- ary 26th of this year the council approved realignment. The existing Country Club Road would remain in use to serve current and future developments fronting on that street. Construction of a new Country Club Road is anticipated during the 1982 construction season. Planning Commission action resulted in a tie vote, having the legal effect of a denial. The item is referred to the council without recommendation. Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission president, is available to answer questions. If the council decided that the zone change is warranted, a joint hearing with the Planning Committee would be required. Should the council deny the request, they could adopt or modify the findings contained in the original staff notes of December 2. If that were the case, a joint meeting would not be required since they would not be in disagreement. Ms. Smith asked if the realignment of Country Club Road had changed the picture. Ms. Briggs advised that the original staff recommendation did not take into consideration the proopsed realignment. However, the Planning Commission did take this into consideration. Mr. Obie asked Ms. Lannom if the realignment would substantially change the outlook of the Planning Commission as a whole. Ms. Lannom replied that it was hard to assess. There was a feeling that it would not have an effect on the recommendation. There are two new members now, so it could go either way. e Ms. Smith said the situation had changed from when it was considered by the Planning Commission and asked if it would be appropriate for them to review it again. Mr. Gleason said the issue was discussed at the Planning Commission level. The issue of the use is independent from the realignment. Mr. Lindberg asked if there was direction from the Metro Plan. said that two interpretations could be taken: 1) the property commercial; or 2) the plan designates property medium-density. is not specific enough to say either. Mr. Croteau is designated He said the plan No ex parte contracts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes of the minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. Malcolm Scott, 101 East Broadway, representing Chambers Development Corporation, said a number of issues should be considered. The proposed change is consistent with and promotes the objectives of the General Plan and the City of Eugene Zoning Ordinance. The 1990 Plan and the Metro Plan state that residential designations are not intended to be exclusive. There are no detailed residential proposals. The Metro Plan indicates that approximately 30 percent of residen- tially designated land is intended to wind up in commercial or other use. He submits that this was one of those occasions. Of the objectives of the 1990 Plan concerning the residential use element, three would be promoted by the application. One objective was to locate employment centers in relation to available housing, utilities, and transportation. This well-planned project would integrate well in any residential area. It would also sequentially tie e MINUTES--Eugene Planning Commission February 9, 1981 Page 16 e e e into the sewer connection project and the relocation of Country Club Road. He defined the purposes for an RP-zoned designation and submitted the application met these criteria. A map was presented and the council was advised that the rezoning was consistent with and promoted the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. There is a public need for the kind of zone change requested. Some of the staff report to the Planning Commission addressed the issue in terms of market demand. There have been four separate requests to construct office space with a total of 40,000 to 50,000 square feet. The North Bank Building is full, and there is no comparable facility in the area. The public need would be best served with the rezoning of this property. The applicant is committed to develop and meet the demand, and in the context of the sewer extension and partial realignment, the property would logically and neatly fit into the area. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Gleason advised that the concern of the planning commission was the presumption that the criteria used for rezoning t~e triangle would also open up for the remaining pieces of land in that area. Mr. Lindberg said that notes from the Metro Plan indicated that the proposed change would be in violation. Ms. Briggs responded that in almost every land use case was the issue of balancing. Where there is a conflict between residential and commercial land use allocation, staff usually errs in the direction of favoring residentially zoned property. Staff cites the policies of the City support the retention of the area in resi- dential zoning. Mr. Obie said it was a difficult situation. If the General Plan was unclear, then a decision toward denying the application should be considered. The land is more valuable to the community as residential property than RP. Mr. Scott stated that the realignment had brought about a change in circumstances which ought to dictate a new and innovative approach. The relocation of the arterial should indicate that RG is unrealistic. CB 2251--An ordinance authorizing rezoning from RG Garden Apartment Residential District to RP Residential-Professional District for property located south and west of the intersection of Sand Avenue and Country Club Road. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that the property not be rezoned based on evidence regarding housing goals of community, transportation goals, location and dispersal of housing, and the need for medium-density housing in that area; also based on the lack of evidence for additional need in the area for RP-zoned land. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 17 , ' e Mr. Obie said that both denial and approval of the rezoning request would be in variance with the Planning Commission and asked for a clarification. Mr. Long responded that the legal effects of the Planning Commission's tie vote is denial and the legal effect of council and Miller's motion is denial. Those actions are consistent. Mr. Gleason advised that if the motion passed a formal order would be drawn up. Roll call vote. The motion passed unanimously. C. Appeal of a zone change request denied by the Planning Commission for property located at the southeast corner of Beltline Road and Coburg Road from R-l Low-Density~esidential District to C-l Neighborhood Commercial District including a sign district boundary change from Residential District to Outlying Commercial District. (Suzanne Reese) (Z 80-32) (map distributed). Mr. Gleason introduced the appeal. e Jerry Jacobson, Planning Department, said the property involved consists of approximately 1-1/3 acres which is presently occupied by a large single-family residence. The property was zoned R-l in 1979 when it was annexed to the city as part of the Willakenzie annexation. Access to the property is from Coburg Road, a major arterial. Property to the north consists of Beltline Road; to the east and southeast are lots zoned RA and partially developed with single-family and duplex dwellings; directly south are KEZI on property zoned RA which was developed by special permit in 1960; property to the west k Commission on December 2, 1980, and was denied by a 4 to 0 vote with 2 abstentions. Denial was based on the findings that: zoning would conflict with the Metro Area General Plan Diagram; with the discouragement of strip commercial development along major arterials, and there is commercial area available to serve the neighborhood. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the records. The public hearing was opened. Suzanne Reese, 2265 Coburg Road, owner of the property in question, advised that the house was surrounded by freeways, had become a hazard because of transient traffic, and no longer was a suitable family home. Guard dogs were necessary and she was being forced to move. Several commercial agencies have offered to occupy the house which would be the best use of the land. Max Liebreich, 2483 Mission, said the property was unique in its lack of access. One of the suggestions was to use the property for high-density use, but children would not be safe because of the traffic problem. Access should have been given to the property. Mr. Maxwell suggested a mini-refinement plan for this tax lot as well as the KEZI property, with a possibility for a fire station at the end of the street. Rezoninq to commercial use would eliminate problems in the area rather than using renters as a buffer in the situation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 18 " e There being no further public testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Jacobson aqreed that the site was difficult, but staff would not agree that it should be rezoned commercial. There is already a traffic problem in this area at peak hours. The General Plan designates the east side of Coburg Road as appropriate for medium-density residential and the west side for low-density residential. Ms. Miller said the property was suitable for rezoning to medium-density resi- dential and did not think it was a statement that renters were second-class citizens. Any development would have to be carefully done because of traffic difficulties. Strip commercial development should be avoided. Mr. Obie agreed with Ms. Miller, the findings of the Planning Commission, and the staff notes. The General Plan has been correctly analyzed. He encouraged the applicant to consider RP zoning. Mr. Lindberg said it was a difficult situation. He asked staff if medium- density housing would not create even more traffic problems. Mr. Jacobson responded that any intensification of the property would create traffic prob- lems. Mr. Lindberg asked if medium-density would be less of a problem than commercial. Mr. Jacobson said that this would not necessarily be the case. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to deny the appeal and adopt the Planning Commission findings contained in the notes and minutes of the December 2, 1980, Planning Commission meeting. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e II. PAYMENT OF SILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS Res. No. 3470--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period January 26, 1981, through February 9, 1981. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to February 11, 1981. 9~ Micheal D. Gleason City Manager (Recorded by Moir Spicer) MDG:MS:pm/CM8al e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 1981 Page 19