Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1977 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL . January 10, 1977 '--- The regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Euqene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller at 7:30 p.m. on January 10, 1977, in the Council Chamber with the fOllowing Council members present: Eric Haws, Tom Williams. D. W. Hamel, Ray Bradley, Jack Delay, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, and Betty Smith. I-A-l I--Election of Council President and Vice President A. President--Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that Councilman Eric Haws be elected President of the City Council of Eugene for the year 1977. Motion carried with all members voting aye except Councilman Haws abstaining. B. Vice President--Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Williams, that Council- man D. W. Hamel be elected Vice President of the City Council of Eugene for the year 1977. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Obie indicated his purpose for voting for Councilman Haws and Councilman Hamel to be officers of the City Council was that it has been a Council tradition to have people with experience and various philosophies serving as officers of the Council. ~I-A-2 II--Public Hearings A. Annexation of parcel between Augusta Street and Laurel Hill Drive, south '--- of 25th Avenue (M 76-12) The Manager in his background information indicated that this request for annexation to the City of Euqene would be a parcel consisting of approximately 25.8 acres. The property of the request is contiguous to the existing City limits on the the northwest. All of the property in- volved in the request is vacant, the majority of the property is zoned County AGT with the exception of the property just east of Augusta Street, which is zoned RA. The abutting development includes vacant property in the County to the east and south, the Laurel Hill Elementary School to the northwest and the remaining land in the city to the north and west develop- ed in scattered residential use. The stated intent of the annexation is to develop the property in low-density residential use. The Manager in- dicated that the Planning Commission had given approval for the annex- ation at its November 22, 1976, public meeting. Mr. Jim Saul, Planning Department, indicated that the property is within the projected urban service area. The adopted South Hills Study defines the ridgeline as the maximum extent of the urban service area of this city. The ridgeline, as defined in the South Hills Study, is located approximatly 2,300 feet south of this request and about 1,800 feet to the east. He also indicated that the various referral agencies indicate that an urban level of public service can be extended to the ,_ subject property, including sanitary sewers, the park area south of the 1/10/77 - 1 '-- I -~- school is sufficient, and fire service protection can be extended. . \.....-- The Eugene Water and Electric Board has indicated that water and electric service can be extended, and the Lane County Water Pollution Control Division recommends that this area be annexed prior to devel- opment. Mr. Saul indicated, based upon the above facts, that the area of this request is located within the urban service area and a full range of urban services can be extended to the subject property. The Pl anni ng Commi ss i on Staff is of the opi ni on that thi s request repre- sents a logical sequential and expansion of this property. Mr. Saul also indicated that testimony received from the Laurel Hill Neighbor- hood Group showed concern over the type of development that might be incurred in this annexation. It is the Planning Commission's desire that any development to be made in this annexed area would be subject to review by the Laurel Hill Neighborhood Committee group. Public hearing was opened. Louis W. Durchanek, 1760 Sylvan Street, indicated that at a November 15, qeneral meeting held with the Laurel Hill Neighborhood Group he was elected to be the neighborhood representative on this annexation issue. He indicated the group initially requested consideration on access for this annexed area in construction as they feel there are two serious bottlenecks existing at the present time. What takes place in this annexation will set precedent for the remainder of the East Hills slope development. He indicated it was the hope of the group that they could now ask the Council to consider the development of the access during the development of the annexed area and that the e - group would have some involvement in decision making over the actual physical impact that is projected for the area. Dean Greenwood, 1297 High Street, spoke as a representative for the developers of the proposed annexed area. He indicated that the developers will try, and have been trying, to work with the people in that area and that the developers will want to consider the needs of the people of that area as best they can during the work of the project. He indicated that the developers and the people in that area do not agree on the way the area should be developed and that perhaps some of the people in that area do not know what's best for that area. He indicated the developers feel that Laurel Hill Drive should be paved and some of the people in that area also are in favor of that. The developers intend to meet with the Laurel Hills Neigh- borhood group again to discuss further changes that might need to be made. He indicated that changes are still being made. Jim Banks, 2111 Riverview, spoke only as a representative of himself. He indicated that he felt that this development as planned is going to be too dense. He felt that it would be necessary to have less than four dwellings per acre to preserve the land contours and that he understands the density proposed is five to six dwellings per acre if the roads aren't counted. He again reiterated that it would be too dense as far he was concerned. . - ',--- Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. 8 1/10/77 - 2 ~ Councilman Haws directerl a question to Mr. Saul regarding two issues . that had been brought up in public testimony: 1) the access problem to the annexed area: and 2) the visual and physical impact on the neiqhborhood of the proposed annexed area. Mr. Saul replied that in regard to the access problem they would have to look at the precise development plans when they are submitted. He indicated that it seemed the primary concern was with the actual construction traffic which would occur during the development of the proposed annexed area. In regard to the physical and visual impact he indicated those questions should be addressed when a specific proposal is submitted. Mr. Haws asked then if there were any conflict between the plans either before or after annexation. Mr. Saul replied that he is not sure there is a conflict. The plannings have to be consistent with any submitted plans for the development of the annexed area. Councilman Lieuallen then asked if they could foresee any problems regarding working with the neighborhood groups that would be impacted by this proposed annexed area. Mr. Saul replied that when a specific development proposal is admitted it is usually referred to the neighborhood group for input. The comments from that particular group are certainly taken into account during the process of deciding on any proposals submitted. Mr. Bradley then asked what factors the Council should be considering in regard to this proposed annexed proposal for this annexed area. Mr. Saul replied that the three factors the Council should consider are: 1) whe- ther the property area is in the projected service area; 2) whether the proposed annexed area is consistent with the plans; and 3) whether the e urban services can be extended to the area. Councilman Bradley then asked what the relevant timing was to be consid- ered by the Council at this evening's meeting. He wondered if it would be more appropriate at this time, or would it be more appropriate at a later time, to consider the annexation of this particular portion of property. Mr. Saul replied that timing remains a matter of judgment. He i ndi cated the City Council had not previously looked at the timing of this partic- ular annexed area except in regard as to whether the services can be extended or are planned to be extended to the annexed area. He di d indicate again that the project is now contiguous to the city and that all the various referral agencies had indicated that urban level of pub- lic services can be extended to the subject property. Mr. Obie then indicated that he felt the Council should be considering whether or not to annex the property. Mr. Bradley replied that his concern about the timing of this particular annexation was whether the Council should be concerned with infilling within the city limits as opposed to infilling of property outside of the city and whether the Council has any priority addressed to this issue. Mr. Saul replied that as far as he knew there was no policy concerning priorities on timing, that there is now in existence infilling within the city and annexations in service areas contiguous to the city. Mr. Bradley then asked legal counsel what the cost to the City would be to e extend the urban services, to which Mr. Saul replied that he had no figure 1/10/77 - 3 9 r available at this time. Mr. Bradley indicated that he felt that this was a relevant consideration in making a decision on the annexation because he felt that annexing the property outside the city encourages . scatterization that might not be created if the Council would direct '--' its efforts to infilling in the City limits. Mayor Keller indicated that he was not sure Mr. Saul should be expected to answer the issue of timing about infilling within the city or annexing outside the city. He indicated the Council has responsibility into making some judgments on their own. Mr. Bradley then indicated that he felt he was going to vote against the annexation because some of the questions of timing, the infilling problem, considering the costs, and the conflicts within the neighborhood group were left unanswered. Resolution No. 2609--Forwarding to the Boundary Commission recom- mendation for annexation of property between Augusta Street and Laurel Hill Drive, south of 25th Avenue. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. Motion carried with all the Council members present voting aye, except Mr. Bradley who voted no. I-A-3 B~ Changing name of Victoria Street to Chasa Street Manager indicated that the request to change the name from Victoria Street to Chasa Street had been recommended by the Planning Commission in its November 22, 1976 meeting. He indicated that there was another street within the city named Victoria Street and to avoid duplication it was requested that the street name be changed. Mr. Saul in his background information indicated that the street was recently created e "- as part of the major subdivision by Mr. Joe Green. At the time of review the name Victoria Street was accepted; however it had been determined that a street in Santa Clara is also named Victoria. To avoid confusion Mr. Saul indicated the street name change had been submitted. Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 1307--Changing name of Victoria Street to Chasa Street was read by Council Bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the Bill be read the second time by Council Bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carrried unanimously and the Bill was read the second time by Council Bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, Mr. Hamel seconded, that the Bill be approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All members present voting aye, the Bill was declared and numbered 17818. I-A-4 C. Code re: Deferred assessments and extended payments on assessments for senior citizens --. Manager indicated that this recommendation had come from S.P. Flogstad, -- Finance Director, December 14, 1976. The present Code provisions for \0 1/10/77 - 4 deferral of assessments limit the income of the applicant to $4,000 . for an individual or $5,000 for a couple, with $400 allowed for each dependent. Assets in addition to the property of residents are lim- ited to $20,000. Extension or modification of payments for assessments are allowed if the income does not exceed $6,000 for an individual or $7,000 for a couple, or $400 for each dependent, and a $20,000 limit on assets. It is felt that as a result of inflation the assessments create hardships for property owners whose incomes or assets exceed the limits. In order to adjust the present income 1 imits to meet cur- rent needs and also to establish a scale of limitations which will re- flect changing economic conditions without repeated Council action, it is recommended that the income limits be expressed in percentages rather than flat dollar amounts. These percentages would be based on the Lane County median-family income figure reported by HUD in the Section 8 guidelines for housing assistance. As the median income reported by HUD changes the dollar amount limit- ing assessment referrals or payment modifications would automatically adj ust. He indicated that it is recommended that deferral of assess- ment payments be allowed for individuals with income of less than 35 percent of the Lane County median-family income, or Couples with an income of less than 40 percent of that median; and that an addi- tional 5 percent of the median-family income be allowed for each dependent. The age limitation of 62 would remain. The recommended change for income limitation on persons eligible for extension or modification of assessments payments would allow an individual in- come of 55 percent of the Lane County median-family income, and 60 it percent for a couple with an additional 8 percent for each dependent. The age limitation of 55 would remain. Councilman Haws asked if this assessment financial qualification would relate back to other assessments already levied under this City Code, to which Manager replied yes. Public hearing was held with with no testimony being presented. Council Bill 1308--Amending Eugene Code re: Deferral, ex- tension, or modification of payment of assessments-eligibility was read by Council Bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the Bill be read a second time by Council Bill number only, with unanimous consent by the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by the Council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the Bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members present voting aye, the Bill was declared passed and numbered 17819. Jt Councilman Haws asked that media publicity be given to this Code change and thanked the staff for the financial assistance to citizens. 1/10/77 - 5 II ----....-..--.-- I-A-S D. Appeal from Planning Commission decision to grant diagrammatic approval for Rivers Edge Planned Unit Development (PD 76-9) (Safley) Adams Street north of Lewis Street . - Manager noted previous distribution of the Planning Commission Report of November 9, 1976, recommending approval of the granting of diagrammatic approval for Rivers Edge PUD Development. He indicated that appeal had been filed by Allen E. McCullough, Gary L. Sedley, and Alan B. Unkeles. Mr. Saul then indicated in his background information that this approval had been recommended by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1976. He indicated this is not the first time that the matter had come before the Council for review, but that in July of 1974 a zone change request from RA to RZ had been made. Public testimony was taken at that time in which the opposition appeared with the Planning Commission approving the zone change. In August of 1974, the Planning Commission recommended this ap- proval to the Council. In September 1974, there was a joint meeting with the Planning Commis- sion in which a public hearinq was held. The Planning Commission reaf- firmed its recommendation for approval of the Planned Unit Development with a density of 13 units per acre. In October of 1974 the Council gave tentative approval, which did include the limitation of 13 units per acre. At that time there was some concern expressed over access to the river and the preservation of the vegetation adjacent to the ri ver. In September 1976, the recommendation was submitted to the Planning Commission. At its November meeting the Planning Commission approved the development of 102 units on 8.1 acres, which would be 12.5 units per-acre density. Mr. Saul indicated that the diagrammatic approval by the Planning Commission is the first stage of approval of -- '-- a PUD development. He indicated that the Council should consider the overall density, the off-site impact on facilities, and the surrounding neighborhood. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of November 9, 1976, were received as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. Allan McCullough, 355 North Grant, representing the appellants, indi- cated that he was talking for the concerned citizens in the neighbor- hood which would be affected by this PUD development. He said the qroup was appealing on two major bases: 1) That the findings adopted by the Planning Commission were inconclusive in nature. He said they felt that the findings were based more on the developer1s statement of compliance with the 1990 Plan rather than a critical consideration of the impact on the environment and the neighborhood; and 2) The appel- lants were concerned with the promises made by the developer, with thei r mai n concerns be,i ng that there was inadequate evi dence to sup- port the Planning Commission findings that the developer would indeed back up some of the promises he had made in testimony for the Planning Commission. Mr. McCullouqh went on to indicate there were several specific areas of concern by the neighborhood group involved. Fi rst that the PUD development would occupy a large portion of the neighbor- . hood and therefore would have a large impact on the neighborhood. He "--' 1/10/77 - 6 1'J- indicated that the citizens felt that the population density is only one of several factors that should be considered in making the deci- sion for approval of this PUD development. The neighborhood citi- - zens seem to be unanimously opposed to the project as they had had no opportunity to have any voice in the projected development. He added that the citizens were also concerned with the amount of in- creased traffic that would occur in the neighborhood and they felt that the percentage of increase in the traffic should be one of the major focuses of the inquiry. He said the main street entrance to the PUD development is unpaved and the citizens were concerned for the safety of the pedestrians in the area. He also indicated that he felt the impact on Sladden Park had been inadequately considered, in view of the fact that the developer an- nounced at the hearinq that he had planned to include no recreation facilities in the development. He said that if the development is approved, an effective planting screen that will shut out the noise and light, etc. from the surrounding neighborhood and which would make the development invisible as possible from the bike path should be re- quired, especially along the north and west boundaries. The citizens are concerned that street improvements will become necessary and the assessments that result therefrom should be only in the amount to which the property is actually enhanced and the developer should be required to pay the rest of the assessments for the street improve- ments. He said that it was felt that the developer should be re- quired to pay for the improvements in Sladden Park from the impact of the approximately 300 families who will be living in the development. e Alan Unkeles, 247 North Grand, speaking for the appellants, indicated again that the citizens felt there were inadequate staff findings before approval by the Planning Commission for this PUD development and also reiterated the concern that the promises made by the devel- oper should be enforced and the fact that the Planning Commission did not make any assurances that these promises would be adhered to. Mr. Unkeles then distributed to the Council members a proposed resolution that off-site approval for the proposed Rivers Edge be referred back to the Planning Commission for inclusion and/or reconsideration of the factors that had been listed in the resolution. Mike Safley, the developer for the Rivers Edge Planned Unit Development, introduced himself to Council indicating that he would be available to answer any questions. Clarence Ahernin, 143 North Adams Street, representing himself indicated he was concerned about the question of closing Lewis Street as there would be no entrance from the development from Sladden Park. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul was asked to respond for the staff to some of the issues raised by the persons giving public testimony. He indicated that all of the questions raised were fully considered at the Planning Commis- e sion level. He said that the record and evidence fully supported the 1/10/77 - 7 (3 findings made and the conclusions that were reached. Public testimony was taken before the Planning Commission in which many of these same e concerns were raised and to which the Planning Commission addressed ------ itself, taking them into consideration and making its decision to grant a diagrammatic approval for the PUD development. In addressing the issue of assessing the impact of the development on the neighbor- hood, the traffic concerns, and the street approaches, he indicated the City Code requires a judgement to be based on adequate facilities provided in any development and that this was clearly the case in this instance. He said the streets are completely adequate to handle the increased traffic, the streets being Van Buren, Adams, and Jackson, and that sidewalks were the only thing lacking. He also indicated there is now a petition pending for vacation of Loui s Avenue between Adams and Jackson and the city park. Hefel t the position should be taken that the traffic issue had been correctly determined by the Planning Commission. In regard to the relationship of the property development to the surrounding area Mr. Saul indicated that most of the surrounding area is in public ownership at this time. Regarding the concern over the vegetation in the area, Mr. Saul said that there are plans which indicate that most of the trees will be preserved. When a more detailed plan is submitted to the Planning Commission, the vegetation will be more closely looked at and again he reiterated that he felt the Planning Commission had made a sound decision in granting approval. Councilman Haws asked questions of the staff regarding the fact that there are no recreational facilities included in the development and e "- asked whether that should be a criterion in making a decision. He also asked what control there would be over the trees in the area and also about the 1974 promises made by the developer, how they relate to the question before the Council, and whether they were broken. Mr. Saul indicated that there was no requirement criterion for approving a PUD providing recreational facilities. The developer included in- tentions to provide "open spaces" but no recreational facilities such as a swimming pool or parks for the residents because of the cost implications of those facilities. The developer wanted to keep costs in housing down as there is a lack of low-cost housing in the area and to include those facilities would result in a higher cost for the housing. On the issue of the trees and vegetation, Mr. Saul reported that the plans indicate the existing major area trees are to be preserved along the northern boundary of the property and some at the southeast corner of the site would be removed. In regard to the 1974 promises made by the developer, Mr. Saul indicated some may not be fulfilled, i.e., he had projected 59 owner-occupied dwellings and 59 rental dwellings for the elderly, and both of those have been changed. An- other promise made in regard to the impact on the river, Mr: Safley said there would be no impact, he would retain the existing land- scape. Mr. Saul reported that in fact is what is being proposed in the diagrammatic stage. ,--. Councilman Lieuallen then asked how close the northern boundary of e the development would be to the bike path and what criterion could pt 1110/77 - 8 e be used to base a judgement on the diagrammatic proposal, in other words, how may the Council make a decision until the Council sees the --- proposal for that site? Mr. Saul reported that they now know the gen- eral outlines of the development and its general characteristics as proposed in'the diagrammatic proposal and that in his judgment an ade- quate job had been done. He again referred to the Planning Commission's approval on November 9 of the PUD development and he felt that the mate- rial cited in that Staff Report was conclusive. Councilman Bradley then asked if final approval had been given; Mr. Saul replied there are two more levels for the development to go through be- fore final approval is granted. Mr. Bradley then asked if the Council had the option to deny or vote against rezoning of the PUD at its third readi nq. Mr. Saul replied the Council can deny the diagrammatic approval request, but in doing so they must make specific findings for denial. He indicated final approval will be coming before the Council and a Staff decision will be made to approve or deny and of course it can be appealed again to the Planning Commission. Mr. Long indicated that the Council could not address the issue of rezon- ing at this particular meeting because it would require a formal applica- tion by someone to set the process in motion. This was in regard to a question asked by Councilman Bradley as to whether the rezoning has been made from R-2 or RA. Councilman Bradley indicated that the first and second reading had been held before the present Council was elected and perhaps conditions had changed, that the public needs are different now. e He expressed his concern over the period of time which has elapsed since this project was begun and indicated perhaps a new hearing is needed. '-' Mr. Long indicated those concerns were valid but they should be taken up at another meeting. I Mr. Bradley then referred to the Resolution that had been handed appel- lants for the PUD development and said he wondered if the Council had the power to consider Items 1 through 6 at this particular time. Mr. Lonq indicated that in the City Code provision the Council had agreed to give more finality to the Planning Commission decisions, particu- larly at these early stages. He said that it was the Council's duty to point out errors and then affirm, reverse or modify them. If the Counci 1 felt they needed to reverse errors made by the Planning Commission, then the Council needed to point out where the error was made in judgment, but first conclude an error had indeed been made. Mr. Bradley then asked if the Plannning Commission had considered the Items 1 through 6 in the Resolution in the hearing, to which Mr. Saul replied that the Planning Commission did not have that list of condi- tions before it, but had had a list of 19 conditions which were consi- dered and those six were included though not worded precisely in the same manner. Public hearing was closed with no further testimony being presented. - Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel to deny the appeal from the ',-- Planning Commission decision to grant diagrammatic approval of the is 1/10/77 - 9 Rivers Edge Planned Unit Development (PO 76-9)(Safley) (Adams Street north of Lewis Street), with the Staff to prepare a written document . for the basis of denial of this appeal. '-- The motion carripd with Delay, Lieuallen, Haws, Smith and Williams voting aye, and Hamel, Bradley, and Obie voting no. Mr. Long indicated that the Staff would need to support specific findings for denying with respect to the errors made by the Planning Commission. Councilman Obie then asked that the Staff prepare a ducument of positive findings. He expressed concern for development and the impact on the city. He indicated that we need PUD housing, but that no one wants it in his own neighborhood. He indicated that rental property leads to transitory versus permanent characteristics and it is detrimental to adjacent neighbors because of the density of PUD housing. Councilman Lieuallen said he disagreed with Mr. Obie, that the Council has to implement the notion of compact growth. Whatever development takes place will of course increase the traffic impact, but he felt the traffic argument was not relevant because it will be faced in any part of town. Mr. Bradley made a motion to postpone the action by the Council on this item until an analysis of Items 1 through 6 of the proposed Resolution by the neighborhood group had been looked at with the Staff to prepare a report with positive and negative findings; there being no second to the motion, it was dropped. e -' Mr. Saul responded to the Items 1 through 6 in the Resolution. No.1: That the effect of traffic be considered on a percentage basis increase, rather than on the basis of whether existing streets can handle it. Pedestrain safety and necessary improvements should be given more weight. He said the criteria of the City Code is spe- cific and the evidence indicates that the streets are able to handle the traffic. No.2: That an evergreen screen be planted around the periphery of the development, particularly around the north and west edges and that this be something more than a screen that will be effective in 20 years. He said the Planning Commission has the authority to require screening around the periphery and there was no evidence in the testimony given before the Planning Commission any reason for thi s to be done. On the north side the developer proposes to leave the evergreens and the Planning Commission will review with greater intensity the problem of screening as the proposal goes through its final stages. No.3: That if street improvements become necessary, as they almost certainly will, the owners abutting these street improvements will only be assessed in the amount thei r property val ue is actually enhanced by the improvement and the developer pay for the rest. Mr. Saul indicated that this goes directly against the present City . Ordi nances. '--"- No.4: That the developer either construct his own recreational facilities or be required to pay for additional facilities that will 1(, 1/10/77 - 10 almost certainly be required in Sladden Park due to overcrowding, Mr. Saul reported that there is no evidence in the record that such . facilities should be required; there is nothing to substantiate such a requirement. No.5: That no toxic herbicides be used in clearing or maintaining the site; Mr. Saul reported there is no evidence that any would be. No.6: That fewer units be constructed if necessary to bring the development into conformity with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Saul indicated that the Planning Commission had reached the determination that this is compatible with the neighborhood. Councilman Lieuallen indicated that he was concerned about the impact on the bike path which he sees as a commuter route. He said his main reqret is the hostility the neighbors feel toward the developer and the Council and he felt in the future perhaps these hostile feelings could be headed off by having people become more involved in the process at an earlier stage. II-A-2 E. Abatemeo..t--Eugene Crystal Ice Compary, 777 East Broadway Manager in his background information indicated that discussion had been outlined before the Committee of the Whole meeting indicating the ,- conditions of the property and things that needed to be corrected. He said the problems had been discussed with some progress. Some of the problems include: an improperly installed and unsafe electrical service panel, a fiberglass, plastic, and light wood frame canopy structure located at the northerly rear of the service station garage is structurally unsound; an electrical service drop is accessively close to the metal-clad roof covering of the service station; exten- sion cord wiring and electrical conductor splices were evident in the compressor room; the westerly tire warehouse area is still used for storage and human occupancy even though the second floor and main floor area are rotted out and partially collapsed. The basement, main floor, and second floor are not provided with adequate fire exits. Mr. Henry noted that the abatement notice had been distributed by the superintendent of building inspection, dated October 8, 1976, request- ing the City Council to take action on implementing final abatement of the dangerous building based on the unsafe conditions enunerated above. He indicated that a January 5th letter had been received from represen- tatives of the property owners, setting forth things they will do to comply with some of the corrections that need to be made. He indicated a Resolution needed to be made requiring these items to be corrected within a short period of time and that a reasonable compromise had been reached with owners of the property so that certain actions should be taken by Apri 1 1, 1977. ," Mr. Nolte indicated that the property located at 777 East Broadway and 787 East Broadway had a long history of Code enforcement action on the 1/10/77 - 11 l1 property dating back to 1964. He indicated that abatement of the ice plant at 777 East Broadway portion should be done by April 1, and that . the tire storage within the ice plant should be terminated immediately. - Public Hearing was opened. J. W. Bill McCracken, Jr., 975 Oak Street, was speaking in support of the compromise on behalf of John K. Pratt, owner of the service station at 787 East Broadway. He indicated that the matter has been reduced to a series of promises Mr. Pratt would perform by April 1, 1977. He i n- dicated he had examined the premises at 777 East Broadway and accepts the conclusion they should be abated. However, he would like to pre- preserve the service station at 787 East Broadway and work out the problems. Therefore he urged no action be taken at 787 East Broadway. Scott Wylie, 1588 Patterson Street, spoke for himself indicating that he did not know the reasons for abatement, but was speaking from the point of view of a frequent passerby. He indicated that whatever final outcome action, he would like to urge cooperation in reinstating use of the entire facility. He indicated he felt the building itself has a great deal of merit and character and should be preserved by the city. Public hearing was closed with no further testimony given. , Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt ~solution No. 2610, authorizing abatement at 777 East Broadway, Eugene Crystal Ice Company, to include the date of abatement to be April 1, 1977. e '- Councilman Lieuallen asked what an abatement action in effect does. Mr. Long replied that it orders demolition or correction of the substandard conditions by April 1, 1977. Mr. Bradley asked if in postponing the action to April 1, will the City be subjected to in- creased liability? Mr. Long answered that he would project that the City would be liable. Mr. Nolte indicated that a compromise had been arrived at, that the immediate removal of storage in the building would take place, thus removing the need for people to be in the building reducing the risk and liability to the City. Vote was taken on the motion as stated and passed unanimously, all Council members voting aye. Ten minute recess. III. Items to be acted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items as reques ted. Previously discussed in Committee-of-the-Whole on December 22, 1976 (Present: President Keller; Council members Haws, Williams, Murray, Bradley, Hamel, and Shirey) and January 5, 1977 (Present: Mayor Keller; Council members Haws, Bradley, Williams, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith). Minutes of those meetings appear in different type. From December 22, 1976: e A. Commission Appointments--Councilman Haws announced distri- Co nun ,-. bution of Council preferences in regard to appointments to File Council committees. He reported that'the Council members 12/22/76 \8 1/10/77 - 12 - (new and carryover) had agreed on a list of persons to be in- terviewed for possible appointment to commission vacancies and said the date for interviews_would be set early in January. B. Illegal Tree Cutting--Edna Shirey reported that there is still Comm illegal tree cutting occurring in the South Hills. City Manager Affirm said that matter _was one of great concern to the staff. Ms. 12/22/76 Shirey indicated she hoped the Council_would take a firm po- sition on this continuing problem. Mr. Murray said he found it particularly alarming in the face of public desire to preserve the tree-lined rim of the city and asked that the staff notify property owners and timber cutters of the existence of the city ordinance and requirements thereof. Acting Mayor Keller felt this was an appropriate action. Manager said the staff would atte~pt to comply_with this directive and explained that the most recent episode of violation of the tree cutting ordinance was on the part of an owner-builder_who had applied for a permit but the staff had been unable to determine who had done the excessive tree cutt ing, noting that, nevertheless, the owner is responsible for appropriate supervision of tree cutting. Ms. Shirey said that she did not understand the difficulty in enforcement as the county line was very near the tree cutting as _was property that is being considered for acquisition for the South Hills open space program. She asked that public cooperation be solicited since there are at least three known and recent episodes of improper cutting. Mr. Haws noted that for commercial tree cutters the effect of the pen- .- alty.would become less as the cutting increased and asked the staff how the ordinance might be enforced most strongly. Councilman Murray suggested the new Council look at increasing the strength of the ordinance. Mr. Haws suggested that a Wednesday Council tour include the area in question. Manager said that Ed Smith of Parks and Recreation will arrange both a report and a tour for the Council. Mr. Obie requested copies of the ordinance. C. Findings of Fact Re: Zone Changes--Mr. Williams asked Mrs. Connn Benjamin of the city attorney's office_whether the Council_was File required to adopt findings of fact relative to zone change 12/22/76 applications. Mrs. Benjamin replied that, in case of tie-votes, findings are not necessary. She noted that Mr. Etter concurs in this opinion because, if the Council cannot reach agreement, to require positive or negative findings would be "absurd". D. Stadler Change of Duties--Mr. Henry announced that EWEB's Corrnn Council liaison, Glen Stadler, is assuming n~w duties in Sa lem. File Mr. Stadler said he had enjoyed working with the Council from 12/22/76 his days as a radio reporter through his years as liaison for EWEB. He had found the experience ranged from "enjoyable to frustrating" . He suggested that both n~w and old Council members would want to refer to EWEB's annual report, due out in March, for an account of EWEB's history and present status and suggested that the Mayor might wish to assign a city staff e member to serve as liaison with the EWEB board. Mr. Keller said he felt Stadler had served-his function well. - 1/1 0/77 - 13 19 -~ E. Council President Election--Manager distributed a memo on Connn election of president of the Council and said that the election File was required to take place on January 10, that the meeting of 12/22/76 e -- January 3 would include only the swearing in of new Council persons and the "state of the city" speech of incoming-Mayor Gus Keller. F. League of Oregon Cities Ethics Report--Manager also announced Connn that the ethics report would be coming to the Council members File from the League of Oregon Cities and will be due in Salem 30 12/22/76 days after they assume office on January 3. G. Public Works Grant Money--Manager annouced a report from Connn Senator Pac~ood saying that public _.works grant money had File been approved for the storm s~wer system on Coburg Road; 12/22/76 that the grant of $77l,000_was fairly certain and was the only one of Eugene's applications to be approved. Mr. Ke ller asked whether more could be done to influence approvals. Manager said that staff_would explore the possibilities in regard to the new parking structure; he would refer the ques- tion to the Housing & Connnunity Conservation Department. H. Manager Absence--Manager noted that he_would be gone from the Connn City from December 23 to January 3; that Mr. Martin would be in File town but on vacation; that Mr. Flogstad of the fina~ce depart- 12/22/76 e .-. ment.would serve as the Acting City Manager during his absence. I. Police Chief Arrival--Manager announced that Mr. pierce Brooks, Connn new chief of police, will assume his duties on January 3 and File will arrive in the city the end of Christmas.week. 12/22/76 Mr. Bradley arrived. II. Coopers & Lybrand City Audit Report--Dick Flomer of Coopers & Connn Lybrand noted that a report to the management .was in the mail and File connnented on the excellent cooperation of city staff in preparation 12/22/76 of the audit; he added that, if questions developed on the part of the Council, he.would be glad to come back and respond to them. Mr. Williams asked whether the firm had any connnents to make beyond that contained in the management report and Mr. Flamer replied in the ne ga t i \Ie . III. Request from EWEB for City Council to Authorize Certain Dedications Resolution and map have been distributed to Council. EWEB requested (A) Deeding to USA a perpetual easement northwest of McKenzie Hig~way at Gree~wood Drive; and (B) Dedicati~g for street purposes, a parcel at north end of Hilyard at 8th. Connn Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve both Approve dedications. Motion carried unanimously. 12/22/76 e 2..0 1/10/77 - 14 IV. Annexation - M. J. Stevens (M 76-12) - Map and report have been distributed to Council. Mr. H~ws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the public hearing be se t for January 10 on a petition for annexation of a parcel Comm between Augusta Street and Laurel Hill Drive, south of 25th Approve Avenue. Motion carried unanimously. V. Changing Name of Victoria Street to Chasa Street Map and report have been distributed to Council. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to set hearing for January 10. Mr. Haws questioned the reason for the proposed change. John Porter, planning director, noted that city policy is not to repeat a street name within the metropolitan area, explained that the name Victoria Street_was used in Santa Clara, that using it again had been an error but to correct the error required an official change. He explained that no houses had yet been built on Chasa Street so it was easier to make that change than to change the Santa Clara use of the name, where the street has been built up. Comm Approve Vote was taken on the motion_which carried unanimously. 12/22/76 VI. Pedestrian Right-of-Way Vacation--Located south from Bardell Avenue at Stonegate Street (Lind1ey/SV 76-4) - Map and report have been distributed to Council. Manager noted that the Planning Commission had recommended against the vacation but, with or .without an appeal, the City Council is required to act and hold a hearing on such a request. Mr. Martin explained that the vacation procedures are set by state law; advice must be requested from the Planning Commission, but the Council itself must take actUon on the request. Comrn Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to set hearing for Approve February 14. Motion carried unanimously. 12/22/76 VII. Authorization of Resolution for Entering into Agreement with State Highway Department re Valley River Bikeway Demonstration Project Agreement and map have been distributed to Council. Mana ger ex- plained that, in addition to the basic contract for construction of the Valley River Bikeway Project, the State had forwarded the contract .with the consul tant to design the bridge. He requested that Council authorize appropriate resolutions to allow execution of both contracts. He explained that the project would be funded with an 80/20 split be~ween the State High.way Department and the City, that funding had been approved by the State and the Cit~'s share 1S to be $45,485. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the resolution Comm authorizing the agreements for design and construction of the Approve - project, not to exceed $45,485. 12/22/76 Modification of Financial Qualifications for Senior Citizens' VII I. Deferred Assessments and Extended Payments on Assessments 1/10/77 - 15 21 Memo has been distributed to Council. Manager noted that the intent of the change was to make the requirements for deferred assessments more liberal and realistic, explaining that the requirement is n~w a 4It '- flat dollar amount with income limits and an allowance for dependents. He explained that the new proposal_will relate deferral to a median- family income for the Eugene metropolitan area. The formula will be on a percentage basis with an additional allowance for each de- pendent. Income-producing assets will be excluded from the assets limitation; the proposed changes in the qualifications will result in a 20 percent higher income limit and that the qualifications will be roughly equivalent to the HUD regulations and definitions. Mr. Flogstad of the finance department added that changes will all~w alteration of the formula as the number of dependents increases or decreases; that it makes an applicant eligible when he/she becomes 62, instead of at the time of assessment levy after the applicant has become 62. Mr. Flogstad said the City now has IS persons on the deferred assessment list, and others are waiting for these chan~s to make application. He explained that the median income is estab- lished by HUD twice yearly. Mr. Murray said that he felt the change to be for the better, that it would lead to flexibility and would save constant revision by the Council of the requirements; and that it would broaden the application of the deferred assess- ment program. Mr. H~ws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to authorize drafting Comm of the ordinance and setting of public hearing for Approve January 10. Motion carried unanimously. 12/22/76 ~ IX. Request of Community Schools Coordinating Committee to Change Membership ~ Letter and proposed chan~ have been distributed to Council members. Manager explained that neither Mrs. Skopil nor Mr. PompeI of the committee could attend the committee meeting, but that both are in accord on the proposal. He noted editorial changes to be made in the proposal as referred to the Council: the asterisked item in-the Staff Notes should read currently instead of community voting mem- bers, and the next line should read "one Council member and one school board member are currently voting members". Mana~r said the proposal was intended to make the group more of a lay committee, that a City Council representative_was often in attendance, but that a school board member was very seldom on hand. Mr. Bradley felt the measure should be deferred for school board reaction, said he felt the proposal was one that would make a fundamental difference, since the question -of_whether staff should be allowed to vote is a philo- sophic one. As an alternative, recommendations could go to the staff as a sounding board, he said. Mr. Murray said that he felt differently about the matter, that he had preceded Mr. Bradley on the school committee and agreed with the request; he felt it would not exclude staff, that the board would continue to depend on staff but the board itself would feel more responsible; thus the change_would be a positive step, though not a cure-all. Mr. Bradley suggested that, as an alternative, votes could be weighted or the lay representation on the committee could be increased. Mr. Williams explained that the Metropolitan ~ -- Cable TV Commission is composed equally of elected officials, staff, 1/10/77 - 16 21, and lay persons, all with equal votes. The Assistant Manager explained that the bike committee is similarly composed. Mr. Lieuallen said that his perception of the proposal was that it had . been developed as a result of staff domination of discussion in the committee. He felt it might be better to shuffle staff than to change the rules for composition of the committee. Mr. Bradley said he felt staff participation was not unhealthy if it led to dialogue between staff ann lay citizens as long as the balance lies with the Ci ty Council. Mr. Murray said it was not necessary to make this into a matter of board policy since it was an isolated instance. Mr. ~furray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the r~uncil's acceptance of the proposed restructuring be relayed to School District 4-J and the community school committee. Mr. Bradley said he preferred "approval in concept" until reaction was relayed from District 4-J. With consent of the second, Mr. Murray restated the motion to read "approved in concept". ~fr . Keller said feedback from 4-J was essential~ Mr. Murray felt feedback from the committee itself was important. Council Approve Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously. 12/22/76 x. Comments by Mayor-elect Y.eller--Mayor-elect Keller asked the staff to develop a resolution of appreciation for Mr. Stadler's contribution. - He also noted that this was the last official meeting of Mrs. Shirey and tfr. Murray, that both have been much appreciated and would be Council much missed. He said he would be pleased if they were to announce Af firm that they would like to continue to help the Council in any way. He 12/22/76 wished all hands a Merry Christmas and hoped everyone would drive with care. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve, affirm, and file as noted items listed under III A. Items 1-10. Roll call vote. Moti ons carried, all council members present voting aye. From January 5, 1977: A. Municipal Court Committee--Councilman Haws requested a written Comm report from the staff on the Municipal Court Committee so that File it could be sent to lay members of the Committee. 1/5/77 R. Rud~et Committee Appointment--Councilman Haws recommended Mr. Tom Poage, a consultin~ engineer and former city employee, for appointment to the Budget Committee from Ward 6. Comm Mr. Bradley moved seconded by Mrs. Smith that Hr. Tom Poage be Approve appointed to the Budget Committee. Hotion carried unanimously. 1/5/77 C. Tri-Agency Animal Control Meeting--Mr. Bradley gave a status report on the last meeting of the Tri-Agency Animal Control Agency. Th ree actions being considered are: (1) extension of Lane Humane Society .- contract; (2) decision on site location; and (3) discussion with staff on whether to continue license fee discounts for the elderly. 1/10/77 - 17 D D. Cable TV Commission progress--Mr. Bradley requested Mr. Williams Comm to provide a status report on progress of final negotiations of File the Cable TV Commission and whether the Council will be able to 1/5/77. '- participate in those final ne gotiations. Mr. Williams commented that a draft of the franchise had been completed and sent to Teleprompter about ~wo weeks ago, requesting that it be a basis for negotiations. Teleprompter's representative will be in Eugene January 6th to meet with staff and the Commission. Mr. Williams commented that there is no specific time set for com- pletion of the negotiations. A negotiation team will include Mr. Long, City Attorney's office, and representatives from each of the three Hearings were held several months ago and the Commission will hold a public hearing later before final negotiations are completed, at which time anyone can testify. Mr. Bradley asked why this approach was used and why the Council was not making the final decision. Mr. Williams commented that final approval_will be made by each of the three governing bodies. Too, the format being followed_was origi- nally approved by the Council. Mr. Bradley then asked if the negotiations would allow some public TV time to which Mr. Williams replied that a channel -for public purposes is planned. Also, citizens can show home programs on that channel by paying the cost of showing those programs. E. Affirmative Action Report Format--Memo of January 3, 1977, has been distributed to Council explaining that a meeting will be held at noon on January 14 to develop the format for the -next affirmative ~ __ action report. Staff, along_with representatives from Council and .., the Human Rights commissions, _will participate. Comm It was understood that Mr. Williams and Mrs. Smith would Affirm serve as Council representatives. 1/5/77 F. Legislative Committee Appointments--Mayor Keller announced Comm appointment of Mr. Williams, Mr. Haws, and Mr. Obie to serve Affirm on the committee screening issues to go before the State 1/5/77 Legislature. G. Scheduling of Interviews of Applicants for Council-appointed Boards and Commissions. Co rom Applicants are to be intervi~wed for vacancies on the Minority, Affirm Handicapped, Aging, and Wome~'s commissions and the HCnC. 1/5/77 It _was agreed that intervi~ws_will be held Wednesday, January 12, at 7:00 p.m. in the McNutt Room. Mr. Haws reported. the time change to 5:15 p.m. H. Report on Logging Problems in South Hills--Report has been distri- buted and Council has toured the area. Ed Smith, Parks Director, reported that this logging operation is the first one legally per- mitted since the inception of the tree-cutting ordinance. He also mentioned that it was being very closely monitored by his staff; ~ '- the permit had been issued in May, 1975. He indicated that the ,- developer, George Zellner, had agreed to remove no more than 35 percent of the fir trees located on the property. In monitoring ~~ 1/10/77 - 18 the operation, and counting the stumps, it was found that between 3R-40 percent of the fir trees had been taken out. Hr. Smith said he and his staff felt that the 38-40 percent of fir trees cut were within a reasonable variance. He said the property owner has taken all e precautions to log with rubber tire loaders. to run parallel contours with the ground area. to take the short logs out, and to protect all of the hardwoods. Hr. Smith indicated there was still some work left to be done and that the owner is completely willin~ to do all possible to comply with the tree-cutting ordinance. His staff will continue the monitoring until the project is completed and will keep the Council apprised. ~tr. Oble commented that he had walked over the ground last weekend, and that the ~round appeared to have been raped, and that there could be a great erosion problem there. He was concerned with the effectiveness of the ordinance and wondered if there should be stronger controls by the staff. He also asked if the landowner had permits for other ground areas to be cleared. Hr. Smith replied that he did have a permit for another parcel of ground but that permit had been revoked until the current project is completed. Mr. Bradley then asked Mr. Smith how the allowable percentage of trees to be cut is determined. Mr. Smith explained that the owner has to submit a plan to the Parks and Recreation Department, who considers the plan and makes a determination. Mr. Bradley asked if there needed to he a standard to arrive at the percentage of trees to be cut. Mr. ~mith replied that it is necessary for his staff to look at each piece of ~round on an individual basis. Normally, the owner marks the trees on specific pieces of ground, which makes it easier for the staff to e make a determination. Mr. Haws suggested that the staff continue to monitor this project very closely and asked that the Council take another look at the tree ordinance, perhaps making refinements and changes. He felt it should receive top priority. Mr. Keller felt it would be appropriate to reassess the tree-cutting ordinance at the conclusion of the current project. Mr. Obie agreed, but expressed concern for what will happen to other areas between now and then. Mr. Smith emphasized that the ordinance only prevents clear-cutting and that the owner must submit a plan to the Parks Department. '-tr . Saul, planner, commented that, on an adjacent PIll, the developer inventoried all the trees during the plan proces. Cons truc tion techniques were designed to avoid all major trees. The developer is distressed that the same process is not being followed in the present instance. Mr . Saul said the process seems reversed to conduct tree removal preparatory to filing a development proposal. It was understood that staff would discuss and bring back Co rom a report on whether changes in the process can be imp le- Aff i rm mented at the staff level, without an ordinance change. 1/5/77 I. Introduction--Legislative Coordinator-~fanager introduced Co rom }ts:, Dee Tipping as the new Legislative Coordinator in the File City Manager's office, replacing Donna Thatcher. 1/5/77 J. Introduction--Police Chief-4ianager introduced the new Police Co rom - Chief for the City of Eugene, Mr. Pierce Brooks. File 1/5/77 2.5 1/10/77 - 19 K. Handicapped Commission Appointment-~anager reported on the resignation of Chris Casady as a member of the Eugene Handicapped Commission, effective January 1, 1977. He indicated the Council had earlier selected an alternate member for the Commission, Mr. R. C. Darby. e '-- Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. abie that Mr. Darby be Comm appointed to fill the unexpired term on the Handicapped Co~ Approve mission, ending January I, 1979. Motion carried unanimously. 1/5/77 L. . Meeting with State Legislative Representatives-~anager indi- Comm cated a meeting is planned with State legislative representa- File tives Thursday, January 20, in Salem. A reception is planned 1/5/77 for 7-9 p.m. at the Black Angus. It is suggested that Council meet for dinner with Eugene's delegation following the reception, for the purpose of discussing the program for the coming legis- lative session. Too, the city's legislative program is planned for discussion at the January 19 Committee-of-the-Whole meeting. M. Metropolitan Sewer Advisory Commission--Manager reported that the Metropolitan Sewer Advisory Commission has requested the City and County to continue the life of the Commission for one month following the date the last agency approves continuation, for the purpose of allowing the Springfield City Council to con- sider an alternative treatment plant proposal. Mr. abie moved seconded by Mr. Haws that staff be author- Co rom ized to enter into a contract extending the Metropolitan Approve Sewer Advisory Commission for 30 days from the time the 1/5/77 contract is signed by the last of the three agencies. .t-1otion carried unanimously. - -- II. Liquor License Applications--Greater Privilege A. Mocney's Barbecue, 1976 Garden Avenue, from R to DA ~. Oakway Wine and Deli, Inc. , 305 aalcway Mall, RMB Co rom Hr. Haws moved seconded by Mr s. Smith to recommend Approve approval of the applications for greater privilege. 1/5/77 A question was raised on whether Council should be provided with criteria to use in determining whether to recommend ap- proval. Mr. Bradley wondered about taking a "no position" stance. Assistant City Attorney felt that would be the same as a negative recommendation. It was understood Council would be provided with criteria'to use in considering liquor licenses. III. Improvement Petition Paving, sanitary, and storm sewer in and adjacent to Doveri's plat-- 100 percent petition--cost to the city $11,000 for the storm sewer. Comm Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve the Approve petition. ~fution carried unanimously. 1/5/77 e '-- IV. Request of Citizens' Council against Fluoridation Letter of December 28 from Christine Beltran distributed to Council, as well as legal opinion indicating that to put the issue on the ballot again would require 6,228 signatures on a petition, which is 16 percent ~~ 1/10/77 - 20 of the total voters voting for mayor in the last election. Ms. Reltran has requested the issue be resubmitted to all voters in the ElmR service district, saying only Eugene voters cast ballots in the . first election and that the wording of the measure was misleading on the ballot. Mr. Raws felt that Council's decision should not be based on the merits of fluoridation but, rather, whether to place it on the ballot. Mr. Lieuallen felt it was a county matter, since the city cannot conduct an election outside of city boundaries. Finance nirector noted that a special election would cost about $6,000. Mr. Williams said that, since EWEB is owned by the people of Eugene, they should have the legal right to make decisions on water quality. Mr. Norm Stone, EWEB, indicated that EtmB does serve customers who never have the opportunity to vote on matters affecting EWEB, Mr. Obie felt a public hearing should be held January 10 to decide whether to put the issue on the ballot. Mr. Haws is opposed to a special election because of the cost to the city. Mr. tieuallen suggested that the opponents of fluoridation perhaps should seek to effect a change allowing service district elections. Mr. Bradley moved seconded by tk. Williams to deny putting Comm the fluoridation issue on the ballot. Motion carried, Approve Council members Obie, Williams, Haws, Bradley, Smith, and 1/5/77 Delay voting yes and Councilman Lieua1len voting no. It was understood that the matter would be placed on the consent calendar of the January 10 Council meeting at which . time public testimony may be taken. Staff will set a time limit. II-A-3 Public hearing was opened for the public testimony to be taken on the request of the Citizens' Council Against Fluoridation. Manager explained that since there was such intense interest by the community on this issue, even though the Council had voted to deny putting this issue in a ballot, a pubic hearing would be held with the time allotted set by the Mayor for thirty minutes. Mayor Keller reminded the audience that those testifying were not to discuss the merits of having or not having fluoride, but to address the issue of whether fluoridation of water should be back on the ballot. Robert Graham, 2922 Quiet Lane, speaking against the issue. Mr. Graham indicated that he would like to see another ballot taken on the fluoride issue because he felt the old one was unfair, as the old one to him was stated in a very unclear manner. He wondered whether anyone had the right to force anyone else to have fluoride in the water. He feels that this is not a issue that lends itself to vote. He said that he felt it was a personal matter whether a person takes it or not. He indicated that the last vote took the right away from him to drink pure water. He wondered about whether the election was legal or not and indicated that he wanted another election on the issue. - Jack Wilbur, 2525 Kincaid, speaking against fluoridation. He f e 1 t that the people were misled by the wording of the measure on the '2.7 1/10/77 - 21 ----- -- November 2 ballot. He indicated if the measure were put on a ballot in a concise and orderly manner it could be defeated. John L. Waughtal, 2380 Adams, spoke against the'fluoridation issue. e -- He indicated that he felt one group does not have the right to tell others to take things in their personal diet. He felt that this was against the freedom of the country and he was not in favor of the fluoride in the water. W. W. Calhoun, 1210 West 5th Avenue, also spoke against the fluoride issue. He indicated that the issue had been on the ballot three different times in the length of time he had lived in Eugene. He was asking for fair play. He said the Council put the issue on the ballot three times and now the people who are opposing fluoride in the water have to go through the initiative process to get it put on the ballot again. He asked that the Council put the issue on the ballot this time so that the opponents of fluoride in the water would have a fair chance to vote ~gainst it. Flora Cox, 1438 West 5th Avenue. She indicated that she felt the city needed a pure water law to prevent the poisonous substances in the water. She was asking the Council to put the issue on the ballot and not take away the freedom of those to vote against the issue. Glenn M. Gordon, 1136 East 20th, spoke on whether to revote for fluo- ridation. He complimented the Council for putting the issue on the ballot last November. He said that if it were on the ballot again, he feels that the people would vote again for it. He indicated that e reports had demonstrated the safety of fluoride and that it was very '- effective. He also indicated that when his children were growing up they did not have the benefits of fluoride in the water. He told the Council that he hoped that they would not put it on the election ballot again so soon. Mary Hickey, 812 Beacon Drive, spoke agai'nst the fluoridation issue. She indicated that she felt that the vote was unconstitutional and also that the opponents of fluoride in the water were deprived of a pOdium in the last election because no one would debate openly. She wants a public hearing and an open forum and wants it put on the ballot again. rim Zell, P.O. Box 3575, Eugene, spoke against fluoride in the water. Mr. Zell demonstrated the difference between the natural chemical of fluoride and ,the pollutant produced by the industry which is called sodium fluoride. He said that sodium fluoride is the substance in our water. He performed an experiment putting sodium fluoride into a glass of clear water and asked someone in the audience to drink it. He was trying to make the point that if it is poisonous and that people don't want to drink it, then they do not have the right to force the poison on those in the community not wanting to have fluoride in the water. Elaine Muhr, 2121 Harvey Avenue, spoke against fluoridation. She indicated that she was a nutritionist in Eugene and felt that the way . "-- the ballot issue was voted on in the last election made it difficult for 1/10/77 - 22 ~ people to vote in the way that they felt about the issue. She said that it was so hidden on the ballot that people did not find the e issue. She asked the Council to put the ballot on again without having to force those who want the issue to go through the initiative process. Robert J. Harland, 4400 Hilyard, spoke against putting the fluorida- tion issue on the ballot, although he felt that the two issues on the ballot measure confused the voters, that the ballot issue was written unintelligently and was not readable. He also indicated that the per- centage of the voter population which turned out is significant and that should stand for itself. Walter R. Trent, 835 Bobolink Avenue, Eugene, spoke against the water fluoridation issue. He indicated that he was a chemist living in Santa Clara and had no right to vote on the issue. He wants to stop fluoride in the water and let the two sides fight it out in another ballot issue. Janet Hulegaard, 1540 West Hilliard Lane, spoke in favor of fluori- dated water. She said she didn't get to vote but that she would have voted for it. She cited facts on dental decay and that the prevention is in the fluoridation of the water supplies. Cheryl. Buchanan, 693 West 10th, spoke in favor of fluoridation. She felt that ballot measure 51 was clear enough, but perhaps ballot number 11 was unclear. However, she indicated the City had made a decision and that the voters, with a high voter turnout, made their e decision. She felt that those people in the outlying areas perhaps ---- should go to the courts to determine their complaint against not being able to vote on this issue. Beverly Juiltz, 1065 Fairborn Avenue, spoke in favor of the fluorida- tion issue. She said that she supports a dental program in Eugene, and the expansion for the prevention of dental problems by having fluoride in the water is something she favors. She believes the ballot issue should stand and let the courts make a decision if there is one to be decided. Eric Cooper, 2380 Charnel ton Street, Eugene, spoke against the issue. He felt that it was an unjust measure and wants to remove fluoride from the water. He said that if the Council did not put it on the April ballot they could rest assured there will be a special election because the opponents of the fluoride in the water will make sure its on by the initiative process. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony. Councilwoman Smith asked about the cost of the election. Mr. Flogstad replied that a special election would cost about $6,000. Otherwise if it were a ballot measure put on a regular election that the cost would not be that much. e Councilman Delay indicated that he personally was not afraid of fluo- ride. He said the Council had made an error in placing this on the '--' 1/10/77 - 23 ~ . ballot in the first place. A simple majority is forcing health medi- cation on others who perhaps don't want to take it. He feels that it is an affront to their freedoms. He also indicated that he felt that the Council should go the lowest cost route, and perhaps place it on a e ballot as the Council owed that to the opponents of the issue. '--' Councilman Williams indicated that placing it on a ballot would be quite an important step for the Council to make. He said 70 percent of the citizens had voted at the last election and if it appears on a special election ballot the majority will of the people might be reversed by perhaps seven or eight percent of the people. He felt that would be a travesty of the democratic process. He was not in favor of a special election but said that perhaps the issue might be put on a general election later on. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Williams to approve, affirm, and file as noted items listed under III-B, Items 1-5. Roll call vote. Motion carried with Councilmen Bradley, Obie, Delay, Lieuallen, Haws, Smith, and Williams voting aye and Councilman Hamel voting no. Manager indicated the result of the vote was to approve to deny putting the fluoride issue on a ballot. v. Authorizing Putting Out Loan Agreements to Bids for Housing Rehabilitation Programs nraft agreement has been distributed to Council. Mr. abie expressed a concern that the city seemed to be buying money at retail and selling it wholesale. He questioned whether the city e should become a lending institution. He also raised the issue of why ~ money should be borrowed by the city all at one time. Manager replied that the city has been in the loan business for several years. The issue before the Council was simply permission to expand the program, by enlisting the cooperation of local banks to encourage rehabilitation of homes where most needed. Paul Osborn, HCC, indicated that, by borrow- ing all of the money at once, the city would be earning at least as much on borrowing as it would be paying. Too, the money would not. be taxed by the federal government, so the banks can loan at a more popular rate. Mr. Osborn indicated also that the loan losses would be less than one percent default rate. Mr. Lieuallen felt the program seemed well within the guidelines and is aimed at needed housing rehabilitation. ~tr. Haws moved seconded by }tr. Williams that the city be author- Co rom ized to put out loan agreements to bids for the housing rehabili- Approve tation program. lrotion carried, Council members Williams, Haws, 1/5/77 Bradley, Lieuallen, Smith and Delay voting aye and Councilman Obie voting no. 11-8-2 C. Items not previously considered 1. Liquor license: Amber Inn Tavern, 1466 West 7th, Change of Ownership (Conoway to Becker) Mr. Henry indicated this item had not come before the Committee-of- the-Whole as all of the papers necessary had not been collected until - January 10, 1977. He indicated that it was necessary to be acted upon '-- at this time because the schedule of the Liquor Control Commission would result in two months delay for approval if the Council did not now. The tavern in 0,uestion is being foreclosed on by the original owner Mr. Becker. 30 1/10/77 - 24 Kay Boyington, 148 Norma, spoke representing Mr. Becker. She indi- cated that many payments connected with the business were in default. Mr. Becker wishes to retain ownership to correct the back payments. -- Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to approve the change of ownership of the Amber Inn Tavern and to approve the liquor license. Motion carried with all Council members present voting aye. II-B-3 IV. o rdi nances Council Bill 1309--Paving, sanitary, and storm sewer within Inger Park Subdivision; and sanitary sewer and storm sewer within 160 feet of the East boundary of Inger Park Subdivision (76-34) was read by council bill number and title only there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be read for the first time and be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 17, 1977, and Panel recommendation brought back to Council for con- sideration for final readin!l on January 24, 1977. Motion carried with Councilmen Williams, Hamel, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith voted aye, and Councilmen Haws and Bradley abstaining. Council Bill 1310--Storm sewer to serve Briarwood Mobile Home Estates (76-35) was read by council bill number and title only there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. -- Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be read for the first time and be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 17, 1977 and Panel recommendation brought back for Council considera- tion for final reading on January 24, 1977. Motion carried with Councilmen Williams, Hamel, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith voting aye, and Councilmen Bradley and Haws abstaining. Council Bill 1311--Sanitary sewer-Seneca Road from Roosevelt Boule- vard to the north apRroximately 600 feet (76-48). was read by council bill number and title only there being no Council member ~rasent r~~west~f tnat f t be read if) f~ 1. Mr. aws mo e secon e 5y . ame t~at t~e 51 e read for the first time and be referred to Assessment Panel for hearing on January 17, 1977, and Panel recommendation brought back for Council considera- tion for final readino on January 24, 1977. Motion carried with Councilman Williams, Hamel, Delay, Lieuallen, Obie, and Smith voting aye, and Councilman Haws and Bradley abstaining. Council Bill 1312--Authorizing Council to set public hearing February 14, 1977 for pedestrian right-of-way vacation, south from Bardell Avenue at Stonegate Street (Lindley/SV 76-4) was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that Council Bill 1312 be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion . carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel that the bill be approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote. All Council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17823. 31 1/10/77 - 25 , II-B-S V. Resolutions Resolution No. 2611--Authorizing EWEB to deed perpetual ease- ment to USA northwest of McKenzie Highway tit at Greenwood Drive was read by number and title. ,- Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Roll ca 11 vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2612--Authorizing EWEB to deed to the City of Eugene for street right-of-way EWEB property at north- end of Hilyard Street at 8th Avenue was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2613--Authorizing execution of agreement with State Highway Department re: Valley River Bikeway Demonstration Project was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried, all Council members p~esent voting aye. Resolution No. 2614--Authorizing execution of consultant agreement with Oregon Bridge and Engineering Company was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. '--- Resolution No. 2615--Commending Glen Stadler's contribution to the . City of Eugene was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution No. 2616--Authorizing City to solicit bids for loan agreements for Housing Rehabilitation Program was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. Resolution 2617--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and pro- gress payments for the period of December 20, 1976 through January 10, 1977 was read by number and title. Mr. Haws moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. . Mr. Hamel congratulated Mr. Haws upon election as President of the Council, and thanked Council for its vote of cofidence in electing him Vice-President. Upon motion duly made and seconded and carried the meeting was ad- '. '- journed to January 24, 1977. DT:er/CM4bl c~n!~ 1/10/77 - 26 City Manager 3 a..