Laserfiche WebLink
5.ACTION: APPROVAL OF 2000-01 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FEDERAL COMMUNITY <br /> DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS <br /> (HOME) PROGRAM <br /> <br /> Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to approve the One- <br /> Year Action Plans for use of Federal Community Development Block Grant <br /> (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program Funds. Roll <br /> call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br />6.ACTION: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING OPEN WATERWAYS, AND ADDING SECTIONS <br /> 6.650, 6.655, 6.660, 6.665, AND 6.670 TO THE EUGENE CODE, 1971 <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor expressed interest in amending the ordinance to delete the exemptions section. <br />She also asked if the council would consider proposed amendments that evening, and if the <br />council would be able to address the issue of buffers. In response to Councilor Taylor's <br />questions, Mr. Lyle said that staff suggested the council go through each amendment separately <br />for potential inclusion in the base ordinance, and further recommended that the council direct <br />staff to develop a scoping work plan and budget for the establishment of interim buffers for <br />further council review. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey referred to correspondence received from representatives of property owned by the <br />Oregon Department of Transportation and SDI/Madsten, and asked if staff recommended <br />passage of an amendment related to that property. Mr. Lyle said yes; because of the location of <br />the property in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan area, staff was recommending that plan take <br />precedence because the property was designated as a developable site in the plan. The <br />property and other similar properties in the WEWP boundaries sould be exempted from the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked legal counsel to confirm a preexisting application was protected from the <br />proposed regulations by State statute. Mr. Klein responded that there was a State statute related <br />to land use applications, and it required that any land use criteria in effect at the time an <br />application was filed would govern that land use application. Because the ordinance before the <br />council concerned Chapter 6 and addressed the prohibition or piping of a waterway and was an <br />environment regulation with police powers, the State statute would not in every case preempt the <br />ordinance. He suggested that the council could include a reference to the State statute in the <br />ordinance to make it clear that in some cases, the prohibition does not apply where State <br />statutes allow someone to pipe and fill a waterway. <br /> <br /> Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, that the bill, with the <br /> unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill <br /> number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap8 termed the ordinance a creeping regulation effecting private property rights. He <br />believed that the council should always "tread lightly" when it came to private property rights. He <br />asked Mr. Klein to comment on the case Sitcom v. the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and its <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />