Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Carlson introduced the item, reminding the council that this was the first opportunity it had to <br />consider ordinances reinstating the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) sections that were not <br />remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or were not appealed at all. He said that the <br />time line for adoption was a quick one, noting the public hearing scheduled for 8 p.m. He said <br />that the council may decide against taking action after the public hearing, and it could extend the <br />public record if it chose to receive additional written testimony before taking final action. <br /> <br />Planning Director Jan Childs noted testimony received from David Hinkley and Al Johnson, both of <br />whom suggested the council postpone action. She also noted the distribution of two motions to <br />correct scrivener's errors in Ordinance 1 identified by Mr. Kelly and a motion suggested by Ms. <br />Bettman. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein characterized the ordinances under consideration as a first step in a <br />multi-step process. He outlined the series of steps to follow, saying the council would readopt as <br />much of LUCU as possible and fix those remanded provisions that could be addressed quickly. <br />Staff would then produce a list of remanded provisions with an analysis of the work needed to <br />comply with the LUBA ruling, and the council would prioritize those items. Following that, staff <br />would return with a series of ordinances addressing those items for council adoption. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein called attention to the three ordinances before the council and invited questions. He <br />noted slight changes between the ordinances mailed out to the council on April 2 and the <br />ordinances now before it. The ordinances mailed on April 2 provided that the ordinances would <br />take effect on the date of acknowledgment, but did not include text allowing them to take effect <br />sooner than 30 days. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein addressed a question regarding why, if the ordinance adopting LUCU included a <br />severability clause, the council could not simply sever the remanded elements. He said that <br />under State law, when LUBA remands a decision, it remanded the entire decision, unless it <br />explicitly affirmed a part of the decision. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey solicited a first round of council comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that Ordinance 1, which reinstated the sections of the code not affected by the <br />LUBA remand, was fairly straightforward; his concerns and questions had been fully addressed by <br />the staff response to his questions and the motions prepared for the item. He said that the council <br />needed to make its work on the remanded sections a high priority, and try to apply their intent <br />while complying with the LUBA decision. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office said that the <br />City was currently administering the tree provisions under old Chapter 6; the provisions in Chapter <br />9 were deleted. Ordinance 1 added some protections consistent with the Goal 5 inventory to <br />provide some stop-gap protections. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about that. She was also <br />concerned about taking action later on in the evening due to her long-standing concern about <br />taking action immediately following a public hearing, particularly in the case of controversial <br />issues. <br />Ms. Bettman said that her questions had been largely answered by staff. She determined from <br />Ms. Jerome that the council would have to take action on the motions related to scrivener's errors <br />when it took final action. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />