CC Minutes - 10/14/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Johnson noted that the City was continuing its partnership in the Public Safety Coordinating Council, and the County had asked for funds for the public information campaign. He said a request would be in the supplemental budget request coming before the council. B. Work Session: Land Use Code Update Planning Commission Chair Bob Conrad stated that the Planning Commission had brought three items to the council. The first was a request for an extension of the time frame for completing the Land Use Code Update (LUCU), the second item was a response to the council's request considering whether to "fast track" a particular item, and the third was a check-in on the goals and guidelines for the LUCU. Mr. Conrad outlined the modifications the commission had made to two existing project objectives and guidelines as a response to citizen comments, and discussion by the commissioners. An eleventh objective was added to make the cost consideration of the code update more explicit. Mr. Tollenaar expressed a concern that the wording of objective 11 was ambiguous, and made a suggestion for a verbiage change to include long-term impacts. He used site review as an example of short-term costs versus long-term impacts. Mr. Conrad said he had no objection to the change in the wording. Ms. Taylor stated that she wanted to eliminate objective 11, and approach the issues based on what was needed, not on cost. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Tollenaar that the wording should be explicit, and noted there was no mention of costs or the benefits of the proposed changes. He supported the motion. Ms. Nathanson noted that LUCU had listed all the things being enhanced, improved or fixed, and this had been included in the public discussion. Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to update the project objectives and establish guiding principles that reflect adopted Growth Management Policies as proposed in the attachment to the agenda and with the further amendment on objective 11, adding the words "and both immediate and consequential" after the word "private." Mr. Laue had a question about the word "consequential." He also wanted to have public benefit mentioned in Objective 11. Ms. Nathanson asked if Planning staff could craft some wording for the motion. Mr. Tollenarr withdrew the motion and Ms. Nathanson withdrew her second. Mr. Lee suggested having a reception with the groups who had commented on LUCU. Mr. Conrad said there were over 30 groups, and he would cover this during the discussion on scheduling. Mr. Conrad said the second item was a request for an extension of the Planning Commission's code update schedule. He gave some background on the update process, and said it had been behind schedule almost from the beginning. The commission had completed about a third of the code review, staff had taken comments for the commission and, in many cases, prepared revised MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 14, 1998 Page 3 11:30 a.m.