Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr commended the work done by Mr. Lyle as City Engineer. For the benefit of the public, <br />Mr. Farr asked staff about other techniques for corridor protection. Mr. Lyle cited the easements <br />secured through the development process as a condition of development and the use of interim <br />setbacks as examples. Staff would identify the different tools available and how those might <br />accomplish the plan's goals. Mr. Fart asked if the use of easements meant that a property would <br />no longer be the property owner's land to use. Mr. Johnson said that the code outlined what a <br />property owner could and could not do inside the easement or setback. The setback could not <br />be built in, but it could be used for other purposes. Mr. Lyle added that the underlying ownership <br />would be with the property owner; only if the City purchased the land in fee would it be in public <br />ownership. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that when she called for a less expensive process she was advocating for less <br />money for planning and more for implementation. She thought there were some purchases that <br />the council knew should be made, such as West Amazon. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly advocated for a shorter, more strategic process with less detail. He asked staff to <br />provide the council with the relevant adopting ordinances stating what the Stormwater Fund was <br />intended for. Mr. Kelly asked that staff take advantage of the mechanisms that exist to protect <br />water quality in the interim. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ suggested that staff prioritize property acquisitions and return to the council with those <br />recommendations. The council would review the recommendations and send them through the <br />public review process. Then the results of that process could be looked at by the council. Mr. <br />Johnson said he envisioned such a process. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor liked Mr. Papa's <br />suggestion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not think the proposed work plan was needed to determine the highest <br />acquisition priorities. He said that the analysis of priorities should not be decided by "who made <br />the most noise." He advocated for a shorter, less expensive process that produced on-the- <br />ground, rather than on-the-shelf, results. He reiterated his desire for up-front public input. Mr. <br />Meisner wanted to know what the public would receive in terms of public information about the <br />process. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson summarized the council's policy direction, saying that staff would return soon with <br />another proposal that was simpler, less costly, got things done more quickly, and was a tool for <br />action that identified high-priority property acquisitions in an early phase. He asked for direction <br />on the timing of the public process. Mr. Meisner clarified that he was recommending early public <br />input on whether residents wanted the City to acquire land; he envisioned a later public input <br />phase during which the community could comment on what was proposed to be acquired. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to direct the staff to come back <br /> soon with a number of choices for the council, embodying Mr. Johnson's <br /> summary, and with a staff prioritization of the most crucial acquisitions. <br /> <br />The council agreed with a suggestion from Mr. Kelly that no motion was needed given the <br />manager's summary of the council's direction. Mr. Kelly clarified that the manager will return to <br />the council with criteria for site selection as opposed to actual sites. Mr. Johnson agreed. He <br />added that, given the council's full schedule, he anticipated that the item would be scheduled for <br />a regular meeting rather than a work session. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />