Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
concerns, but pointed out many people operated outside the permit process and that would <br />probably be where enforcement issues arose. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey expressed a concern that there were many items on the Consent Calendar that <br />residents were not sure about in terms of their impact. He asked if the residents had another <br />opportunity to speak to the many changes that had been suggested by the council. Ms. Bishow <br />said final action was tentatively scheduled for December 11 without an additional public hearing. <br />She said that the council could choose to hold another public hearing and postpone adoption. <br />Ms. Childs suggested that residents with concerns contact Ms. Bishow. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow noted that staff would prepare a document showing how the code was changed from <br />the April 2000 draft and explain the reasons for the change. There would be some time for <br />people to examine that information before the council adopted it. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner noted that he continued to be contacted by constituents urging further changes to <br />the code. Ms. Bettman concurred. She said that the mayor's remarks about residents' <br />uncertainty about the impact of the code were true, and the same could be said of the City itself. <br />She suggested that was a part of the process, and there would be a period of time during which <br />the community adjusted to the new code. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ anticipated a process during which the council would review the results of the code's <br />initial implementation in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that Mayor Torrey made a good point. He said that a majority of residents in the <br />community had no clue about what was going in with the update or the changes being made and <br />how they will affect them. He said that the council would hear from people when they begin to be <br />affected. He said that it was possible the council could anticipate a backlash. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor wanted to see the cost analysis described by Ms. Bishow to be forwarded to all <br />neighborhood organizations and then be the subject of a public hearing. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that whether the council adopts the update now or in the future, it would not fully <br />know its impact until people started to use the new code. He did not think one hearing or several <br />hearings would bring the council closer to completion of the update. He acknowledged that the <br />council would need to do more fine-tuning of the code. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner did not think the council needed to hold another public hearing on the council's <br />revisions. He expressed the wish that there was an executive summary that showed the <br />residents illustrations of what was being adopted, similar to the Visual Preference Survey report <br />produced by the Lane Council of Governments. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey asked staff to prepare the steps the council would need to take to address an <br />unintended consequence that was discovered a week after adoption, and the time line for those <br />steps. <br /> <br />Ms. Bishow referred the council to two motions addressing solar standards prepared by staff in <br />response to the council's previous discussion, one calling for addition of a work program item <br />related to establishment of a green points program and the other amending the code by <br />incorporating testimony submitted by Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) in May 2000. She <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />