06/22/1992 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Roll call vote; the amendment failed, 4:2; Mr. Robinette and Mr. Green voting yes. Mr. MacDonald said that the City had a responsibility to respond to spills and discharges threatening the environment and not just people. He said that no people would die from a diesel spill in the Amazon Channel, but such a spill would kill fish and animals as well as spoil habitat. He encouraged the council to reconsider the original ordinance. Ms. Ehrman pointed out that the ordinance was revised as a result of public testimony expressing concern about cost of implementing the ordinance and duplication of service by other layers of government. She said that the City was the responder of last resort to spills and discharges and she preferred that posture. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to reconsider CB 4381. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. Council Bill 4381 was read the second time by number only. e Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed 4:2, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Nicholson voting no. The bill was declared passed and became Ordinance 19862. X. ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EUGENE COMMERCIAL LANDS STUDY Teresa Bishow, Planning and Development Department, introduced the topic. She said that when the Lane Board of County Commissioners had reviewed Policy 21 in the Commercial lands Study, it had been unsure of the council's intent. Subsequently, following testimony, the board had adopted a footnote to clarify the policy. Ms. Bishow said that, were the council to disagree with the board's suggested clarification, staff requested further direction and would return to lane County to once again solicit study adoption. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Ms. Bishow confirmed that the footnote added by the board did not preclude the conversion of a series of residential dwellings to commercial use across a period of time. Mr. Boles asked how the study could prevent that contiguous commercial space from being razed and converted to another kind of commercial use. Ms. Bishow said that the study would not prevent such a conversion. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. MacDonald, Ms. Bishow said that Policy 21 allowed additional commercial land in south Eugene. The e Page 14 MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1992 7:30 p.m.