CC Minutes - 02/26/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Manager Johnson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4760, an Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations; Repealing Sections 2.027, 7.595, 7.600, 7.605, 7.610, and 9.015 Through 9.1195 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adding Sections 9.0010 Through 9.9710 to that Code; Repealing Ordinance Nos. 18081, 18974, 19402, 17778, 19975, 19470, 19329, 19401, and 19979; Affirming Site-Specific Historic Ordinances; Providing an Effective Date; and Declaring an Emergency. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the amendments outlined in Attachment B--Amendments to Correct Errors in Draft Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Kelly, moved to approve the amendments outlined in Attachment C--Amendments to Draft Ordinance Concerning Land Use Regulations to Address Staff Efficiencies. Councilor Kelly expressed concern about items 1 and 2 in the list of proposed efficiencies. While the commercial development standards were left in place, the changes would eliminate public notice. Regarding Item 5, he objected to the lack of a definition of a lighting specialist, saying there was no certification for lighting specialists. Regarding Item 6, he said that the effect, again, was less public notice. He was particularly concerned about the removal of development in the /ND overlay zone from public notice, and that requirement was explicitly added by council motion. Ms. Bishow said Councilor Kelly's summary of the effect of the items was correct. The changes to items 1 and 6 would eliminate neighborhood notice for commercial and multiple-family projects and remove the review of the applicable standards from being a land use decision to being a procedure associated with the building permit process. Regarding Item 5, Ms. Bishow said that after consulting with Eugene Water & Electric Board and City staff, there was apparently no professional lighting organization issuing such certifications. Mr. Farmer agreed that there was no lighting specialist certification, but there was a national body with membership that issued standards; the City could require membership in that group. He was unsure of the membership requirements for that organization. Councilor Bettman did not think implementation of items 1, 2 or 6 would result in savings of staff time. She said that when the bulldozers began to arrive on a commercial development site, the City would begin to hear from abutting neighbors, and the efficiencies and cost savings would be lost at that point as the City had to address those complaints. Councilor Nathanson said she was comfortable approving the items because the needed permits could be granted only if the application complied with the standards. She thought that the neighbors' objections could be irrelevant to those standards. She suggested the value of public input at that point was lessened. She supported retaining items 1 and 2. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 26, 2000 Page 8 Regular Meeting