Laserfiche WebLink
public or the development community. She believed that the minor amendments process <br />proposed by staff would be resource-intensive in terms of commission and staff time. She thought <br />it was asking a lot to ask the public to track such a process, but the amendment would at least <br />"give people a prayer" of being able to participate in their neighborhood's evolution. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend time by ten minutes. The <br /> motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Rayor voting no. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the work plan was well thought-out. He said the City needed to address the <br />remand items soon and staff should track problems with the code as they arose. He believed that <br />could be done before 20 years had passed. He did not support the amendment. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the minor amendments process proposed by <br />staff, Ms. Childs responded that the City would notify the interested parties list of the minor <br />amendments being proposed. She spoke of the increased use of e-mail, and said she believed <br />that he City would receive considerable comment through that venue. The public hearing venue <br />would be available as well. She confirmed that all neighborhood groups were notified. She <br />confirmed that all commission public hearings notice go to the Neighborhood Leaders Council as <br />well. Mr. Pap~ thought the staff-proposed process was adequate as regards public notice. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said his concerns were satisfied by Ms. Childs' response to Mr. Papa's questions. He <br />did not support the amendment. He added, however, that notice to neighborhood groups provides <br />notice to some individuals, but they were a small percentage of the population and other types of <br />public notice were essential. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the amendment appeared to change the staff-proposed process in two ways: <br />by changing "annual update" to "no more than annual updates" and by explicitly adding mention of <br />the public. In response, Ms. Bettman said that the current process meant the industry and staff <br />would be generating the minor amendments. A public hearing would occur after that process, and <br />the public would get to comment. She was more focused on the amendments-generation <br />process, and found the staff-proposed process to be very exclusive in that it stipulated the only <br />amendments to be considered would come from those two sources. Ms. Bettman did not find that <br />adequate. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs confirmed that the element of the <br />amendment related to the annual review could have the effect of postponing acceptance of an <br />application that could be innovative but did not fit the parameters of the code. Regarding those <br />who participated in the annual review, Ms. Childs said that staff considered the general public to <br />be users of the code as well as the industry, as what she termed "regular folks" also use the code <br />in a variety of ways, such as to evaluate applications for land use decisions in their <br />neighborhoods. She was not concerned about broadening the language in the proposal given <br />staff's intent. Ms. Childs said that she was concerned about the unintended consequences of <br />limiting a minor amendment to the code, as opposed to a major, standalone project on the work <br />program to once annually. Realistically, however, it would be difficult to do it more than once <br />annually. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson also indicated opposition to the amendment, saying that the phrase "users of the <br />code" meant the same to her as it did to Ms. Childs. She had envisioned that notice would be <br />sent to the many citizens who sought and received permits in the past. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />