Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Pap~ suggested June 30, 2001, as the sunset date. Mr. Johnson indicated staff would <br />be more comfortable with the year 2002. Councilor Pap~ acknowledged Mr. Johnson's statement <br />but was not comfortable with that date. <br /> <br />Councilor Lee indicated opposition to the sunset date proposed by Councilor Pap~. Councilor <br />Pap~ said he could not support an interim ordinance without a date certain for its expiration. He <br />said that the sunset date would "keep the heat on" the City to complete work on the permanent <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilor Nathanson understood Councilor Kelly's concerns but said she came to a different <br />conclusion. The ordinance was intended to be interim and would be replaced by something <br />permanent, and she believed that intent should be stated. She asked staff what would happen if <br />the permanent ordinance was not completed by the sunset date. Mr. Johnson said that staff <br />would request the council extend the interim ordinance, which would require a public hearing. <br />Mr. Klein pointed out that would provide an opportunity for legal challenge, and urged the council <br />to consider the advice of staff about what was realistic as regards a sunset date as the ordinance <br />could always be repealed earlier. <br /> <br /> Councilor Pap~ moved to amend the amended motion to establish a sunset <br /> date for the ordinance of December 31, 2001. The motion died for lack of a <br /> second. <br /> <br /> Councilor Nathanson moved, seconded by Councilor Pap~, to amend the <br /> amended motion to institute a sunset date of June 30, 2002. Roll call vote; <br /> the motion failed, 4:2; councilors Pap~ and Nathanson voting yes. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion failed, 5:1; Councilor Pap~ voting <br /> no. <br /> <br /> Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by <br /> adopting Amendment 2, Clarify Definition of Open Waterway. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ said that Councilor Gary Rayor was concerned the definition would not prevent a <br />waterway from being covered with a porous covering, but that appeared to be addressed by the <br />prohibition of covering waterways. Mr. Lyle concurred. <br /> <br />Councilor Pap~ supported the amendment as it clarified the definition. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 6:0. <br /> <br /> Councilor Lee moved, seconded by Councilor Taylor, to amend the motion by <br /> adopting Amendment 3, Prior Approvals and Permits. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein reiterated his recommendation for the inclusion of the term "or as required by State <br />law," and suggested it be added following the semi-colon at the end of Section 6.660(1)(a). <br />Councilor Taylor asked if the phrase was essential. Mr. Klein said it was not essential but flagged <br />for the Hearings Official and Planning Commission that State law must be addressed, and it also <br />addressed the testimony presented to the council. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 24, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />