Laserfiche WebLink
to do much of the staff work but that it would still have an impact on staff time. Ms. Childs added <br />that the public involvement process would be the primary user of City staff time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to not pursue interim setbacks and <br /> rely on existing PUD provisions and LUCU until the Natural Resources Study <br /> was complete. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that seconded the motion in her role as Council Vice President but would vote <br />against it. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly did not see the need to examine each of the lots in question. He pointed out that a flyer <br />was circulated for the LUCU and suggested the same process for interim buffers. He noted that <br />raising land use application fees could be used to cover a portion of the costs involved. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that individual properties needed to be examined because they would be rezoned <br />so the waterside protection provisions could be applied. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that existing PUD provisions and LUCU were not "good enough." He commented <br />that interim buffers may not be the best solution but they were certainly better than doing nothing. <br />He stressed that a degraded waterway could not be remade. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart was in favor of the motion. He commented that there were 585 tax lots that would be <br />affected by interim buffers and that was a significant percentage of the City's buildable land. He <br />raised concern that the amount of available housing would be affected. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner reiterated Mr. Kelly's concerns. He said that LUCU would not be completed in a <br />timely fashion and he did not think the PUD provisions provided enough protection. <br /> <br /> The motion failed, 6:2, with Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ voting in favor. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct staff to proceed with <br /> interim setbacks as outlined in the scope of work of June 21, 2000, and to <br /> approve a request for $85,000 that will be processed as part of Supplemental <br /> Budget #1. If the interim setback ordinance is challenged, there will be <br /> additional legal fees (for defending that challenge) that are not included in the <br /> $85,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment, which was accepted, to change the wording of the <br />motion to read "up to $85,000" in light of the money-saving measures that were discussed. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 6:2, with Mr. Farr and Mr. Pap~ voting in opposition. <br /> <br />E.WORK SESSION AND ACTION: Charge to Proposed Citizen Charter Review Committee <br /> and Appointment Process for the Proposed Committee <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Lee, moved to create a nine-member citizen <br /> committee to undertake a review of the Eugene City Charter specifically <br /> concerning the following as identified by members of the council: <br /> <br /> A. Chapter III, Sections 5, 6, and 8 (wards and elections by wards) <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 7, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />