Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bishow directed the councilors' attention to the "new motions" list. She noted that the first <br />two motions listed dealt with tree preservation and removal standards. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to clarify during adjustment review what criteria would be <br /> used to evaluate the alternative proposals being submitted such as efforts to <br /> achieve clustered development and mitigate for tree loss including replanting <br /> and ensuring the long term health of the new trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He said that there was merit in clarifying the code for the <br />developer and the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart reiterated his concern over the impact of the motion to the cost of housing in the City. He <br />acknowledged that the motion was good in its intent, but raised concern that the cost of the <br />motion would be passed on to home buyers. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend Section 9.2520(4)(g) to eliminate the text "...and application of <br /> chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers..." and create a new section <br /> (h) stating that chemicals are prohibited unless the planning director <br /> determines they will address an imminent threat to public health and safety. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow said that the change would clarify the code and would have been on the Consent <br />Calendar if staff had had it sooner. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that he was in favor of separating the language of the code section and that it <br />made sense to provide criteria for each part of that code section. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Fart regarding a definition of chemicals as stated in the <br />motion, Ms. Bishow said that chemicals, in that instance, would mean chemical herbicides, <br />pesticides, and fertilizers. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that the next series of motions dealt with lighting. She introduced Planning and <br />Development Department Director Paul Farmer to address the subject before the motions were <br />made. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that lighting technology had changed tremendously in the last 20 years. He <br />stressed that exterior lighted needed to be monitored for appropriate levels, uniformity and <br />avoiding glare. He said that light could be measured in lumins or candle power. He noted that <br />there was a term called "cut off" that referred to an angle at which the main beam candle power <br />fell to ten percent or less, and that the industry used this term to help address the problem of <br />glare. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer raised concern over two of the proposed lighting motions regarding allowing <br />decorative lighting that did not cause glare and an exemption for lighting standards around <br />historic landmarks. He said that staff felt they were not really needed but would be happy to look <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 2, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />