Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey invited further council comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that in terms of Ms. Taylor's concerns regarding tree protection, the existing code <br />provisions from Chapter 6 would still be in effect. In regard to comments made about the potential <br />of another appeal, Mr. Kelly suggested that there would be as much of a risk of appeal in the <br />future as now. He expressed surprise that the organizations with staff such as the Chamber of <br />Commerce and Lane County Homebuilders Association did not have time to review the <br />ordinances because even without staff, he had been able to complete his own review in a day. He <br />agreed with the mayor that the public did not know much about the ordinances and probably <br />would not care about a delay. However, he pointed out that for every day the council postponed <br />adoption, the new code provisions did not apply. He said that new large-scale development <br />proposals could be submitted in the meantime. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor determined from Ms. Childs that the City Charter amendment related to the <br />preservation of street trees was not affected by the update. Ms. Taylor reiterated her concerns <br />about taking action following the public hearing. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the impact of delay. She <br />pointed out that the court upheld most of the code update, and reiterated her previous argument <br />for swift action. She wanted to re-adopt as much of the new code as possible. Ms. Bettman <br />asked about the status of meetings between the City and appellants' legal staffs regarding the <br />ordinances. Ms. Childs clarified that there was one meeting at which the appellants' counsels <br />were provided with draft copies of the ordinances. Ms. Jerome said she had telephone <br />conversations with two of the interveners the day the meeting was scheduled and had offered <br />them drafts of the ordinances. She had follow-up conversations with the interveners, in some <br />cases, on more than one occasion. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner hoped that staff would provide the council with an analysis of the testimony it would <br />receive later that evening in terms of how it related to the three categories identified by Ms. <br />Nathanson. He reiterated that he did not want the process to be another opportunity to rewrite the <br />update. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said she wanted direct assurance from staff that the recommended changes <br />related to the easy fixes would not be contested because they were appropriate. Ms. Jerome said <br />that the City had no control over whether something was appealed. That depended on the <br />motivation of those appealing. The City Attorney believed that it would prevail if the ordinances <br />were appealed because they based on a solid foundation. Mr. Klein emphasized that the City <br />Attorney could not provide assurance that the City would not be challenged, but reiterated that the <br />attorney believed the City would prevail if an appeal was filed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted the lack of agreement on the part of the council on the entire Land Use <br />Code Update, but thought it was a code that moved the City into the 21st century and <br />acknowledged the change that occurred. The code was the City's blueprint for a livable future, <br />and it was important to move forward with what the City could move ahead with. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that those who contacted him with concerns about the code were very concerned <br />about its impact on the cost of housing in Eugene. He believed it was appropriate to give the <br />public more time to absorb the information in the document. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />