CC Minutes - 11/13/00 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to the comments made by Mr. Matthews, Councilor Kelly noted that, in many cases, street vacations were done for development purposes and it would be hard to hold that land for a conservation easement. Councilor Rayor commented that the street vacation idea suggested by Mr. Matthews was a good one and expressed his pleasure that it was suggested. In response to a question from Councilor Taylor regarding whether conservation easements were possible, Mr. Klein said that it was not possible for the ordinance being dealt with that evening without rewriting it, but noted that there were instances when council granted vacations but reserved some rights. He cited utility easements as an example. Mr. Klein noted that the fair market value of a piece of property with a conservation easement was very different from a piece of property without one. It meant that, while the City would not pay any money to establish a conservation easement, it would forgo any future revenue from it. In response to a question from Councilor Bettman regarding the reason why there were only 14 people paying for the easement when there were more properties fronting on it, Mr. Young related that one person owned two of the lots and two property owners were splitting a property currently owned by the neighborhood association. Therefore, there were fewer payees than properties. City Manager Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4751, an ordinance vacating a portion of the street right-of-way located south of 40th Avenue and west of Willamette Street. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read a second time by Council Bill number only, and that enactment be considered at that time. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Manager Johnson asked the council to consider Council Bill 4751 by number only. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. The motion passed unanimously, and become Ordinance No. 20216. V. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Prohibited Smoking; Amending Sections 6.230, and 6.240 of the Eugene Code, 1971; and Providing an Effective Date Mr. Klein noted that there were two versions of the proposed ordinance in the council meeting packet that were listed as 3(a), which imposed the smoking prohibition for taverns, bars, and bingo parlors, and 3(b). Mr. Klein said that, in the event that option 3(a) was not passed, staff would need clarification regarding pieces of the ordinance that had already been passed. He said that this would be provided in the alternative ordinance, 3(b). Mr. Klein alerted the council that questions had arisen as to whether the smoking ordinance was covered by the recently passed Ballot Measure 7. He said that he could not say, with absolute certainty, whether the measure affected the ordinance. He suggested two options if the council wanted to eliminate the risk. The first option was for the council to refer the ordinance to the voters which would eliminate the risk of measure 7 impacts until the voters passed the ordinance. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 13, 2000 Page 8 Regular Meeting