CC Minutes - 06/23/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Jerome said that the council had a choice for each of the remanded provisions. It could either rewrite the provision to address the problem or delete the provision as it related to needed housing. The council directed staff to rewrite each provision. The City Attorney's Office drafted an ordinance it believed would accomplish that. Ms. Jerome noted that some of the provisions remanded for needed housing were not in the materials before the council because they were also remanded for goal 5, 9, or 10 problems. Ms. Jerome indicated that both draft ordinances reflected changes that were based on the public testimony. The only difference between the two ordinances were the inclusion of provisions in Ordinance A that the Planning Commission did not recommend based on concerns it heard from the Planning Division staff. Staff had been concerned that some of the provisions, in their clear and objective form, were not desirable from a policy standpoint. Ms. Jerome emphasized the importance of staying within the scope of the remand from LUBA. She invited questions. Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of comments and questions. Ms. Bettman said that the result of LUBA's remand in some instances was a change in City policy or the elimination of the policy. She asked what party, the City or the developer, would be liable if the City relied on the Oregon Revised Statutes administrative rule certifying engineers and there was a miscalculation leading to a landslide that affected housing around a development site. She asked if the change in language increased or decreased the City's liability. Speaking to Ms. Bettman's initial remarks, Ms. Jerome said that it was the intent of staff and the City Attorney's Office to retain the council's policies. She asked that Ms. Bettman point out those inconsistencies. Regarding Section 9.6710(4), Ms. Jerome said that the references to Oregon licensed engineers, Oregon licensed civil engineers with geologic experience, etc., were not new references. They were included in the Land Use Code Update. They were the professionals to do the analysis for all housing. In the update, there was a three-tiered process that called for such experts to submit information to the City that it would then review to ensure the development was safe. The provision was remanded, not for not being clear and objective, but rather because LUBA concluded it resulted in unreasonable cost and delay. Ms. Jerome said that the City then attempted to provide an alternative provision that achieved the same outcome without the unreasonable cost and delay. The professionals cited would submit assurances instead of an application for the City to evaluate. In terms of liability, Ms. Jerome believed the approach lessened the City's liability but was unsure it alleviated that liability completely. Ms. Bettman asked if the professionals in question were bonded. Ms. Jerome believed that was the case. Ms. Bettman asked that the answer be provided to the council before it moved forward. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 9.6815 on page 15 of the agenda packet, which included struck text that had attempted to address the protection of natural resources and water features. The new language only discussed compacting at a 15-degree slope. She thought that the provision did not satisfy the council's intent. She asked if the Planning Commission believed that other City policies addressed those natural resource protection issues. She flagged the section as a policy issue. Mr. Kelly indicated general satisfaction with the ordinances, given the constraints placed on the City by LUBA. Referring to Section 9.6805 of Ordinance B regarding the dedication of public ways, Mr. Kelly said that the text pointed to a table, but the table addressed only streets, whereas MINUTES - Eugene City Council June 23, 2003 Page 4 Work Session