Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

inconsistent with the framework for that process. He did not want to undertake a new code review, but did want the code to work more efficiently for homeowners, developers, "do-it-yourselfers," and staff. Mr. Meisner said the last principle, which called for an annual review, was a huge undertaking; the initial review had been anticipated to last two years, and he believed that was wildly optimistic. He hoped that staff compiled a list of code problems to address as staff and commission resources became available. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Muir for comment on the last principle. Ms. Muir said staff and the commission believed the code should be adaptable and staff should be able to address new issues as they arise. The commission discussed amending the code more often on regular basis, such as through a consent calendar. She assured Mr. Meisner that staff was keeping an electronic data base of problems, which was driving the current amendments process. Mr. Meisner liked the idea of a continuous code review, but continued to question whether staff had adequate resources to accomplish it. Ms. Muir believed so, and said if an item could not be addressed quickly it could be moved to the back of the line. Ms. Bettman asked for a definition of"bounded delegation." Mr. Coyle defined the term as establishing the parameters of the framework in which decisions would be made. Decisions would be delegated, but any decision must be made ethically within the parameters and intent of the law. Ms. Bettman suggested a legal definition be created so that the council knew the parameters between administrative decisions and those decisions having policy implications. Referring to the first principle, Ms. Bettman asked against what values the criteria would be measured. Mr. Coyle suggested the underlying goal of provision in question would be examined, and to determine that staff would return to the code purpose statement. Ms. Bettman said that created a problem for her, because in many cases the entire purpose and intent of the code provision was not included in the beginning of the applicable section, but addressed in the provisions below it. She interpreted the motion as direction to staff revise the Chapter 9 comprehensively as had been done ten years earlier. At that time, hundreds of citizens participated and input from local community organizations was received. She believed staff was requesting maximum discretion from the council for staff to change what the commu- nity put in place without community input. Ms. Bettman did not think the staff-suggested motion reflected what staff had stated was its intent. She wanted to see a specific list of what would be examined, with the parameters for the review. Ms. Bettman said the City was sued over the revised Land Use Code by the Lane County Home Builders Association and Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce because the code lacked clear and objective standards. Subsequently, the City removed all those provisions not considered clear and objective, and now staff was proposing to remove the remaining clear and objective standards and replace them with something intuitive and flexible. She concluded that staff appeared to be aiming for no regulation at all. Ms. Nathanson did not interpret the motion in the same way as Mr. Kelly. She said the council already knew it wanted to make more revisions to the code and had tied that to the work of the committee. She had not interpreted the guiding principles as economic development principles. They seemed like common sense process principles that guided any planning process, be it land use or transportation. Ms. Nathanson interpreted Mr. Coyle's remarks as stating that staff would follow the planning principles already laid out in the code and the guiding principles would be used to address areas where there were conflicts or gaps. She thought they were as much about procedure as the rules, and did not interpret them as an attempt to subvert the rules. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 3 Work Session