CCMinutes - 10/27/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner said he refused to live in a paranoid world where staff could not be trusted. He thought the recommended principles were great, and did not interpret the motion as changing the process of amending City ordinances. Instead, the motion directed staff to consider the principles in developing needed code amendments, which under the law, must be adopted by the council through a public process. The motion did not delegate authority to the staff to amend the code. Mr. Coyle concurred. Mr. Meisner believed the City's code frustrated those projects the council wanted to encourage most. The most innovative developers were the ones who complained about a lack of ability to accomplish what they wished under the code. He hoped that at minimum, staff would develop a set of principles to guide the development of future code amendments. Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner in regard to the council's authority. He said the amendments would come before the council for final approval. He believed the motion gave staff leeway to be more creative. Ms. Nathanson agreed with the remarks of Mr. Meisner and Mr. Pap6 in regard to the council's role. She said the discussion was another opportunity to surface what she believed was the growing tension about the council/manager form of government in Eugene. She interpreted the motion in the same way Mr. Meisner did. The motion was authorization to staff to develop ideas to bring back to the council. Ms. Nathanson pointed out the council often amended ordinances, sometimes after many public hearings, in an attempt to balance the interests of various concerns. Ms. Nathanson thought the staff-proposed motion was appropriate. She said the extreme approach was for the council itself to approve every development application. She thought that would be very unfortunate as it would not be efficient or fair. The process would become politicized, and decisions would not be based on sound planning principles. Ms. Bettman said Ms. Nathanson's comments regarding the council/manager form of government notwithstanding, Mr. Coyle had been clear from the onset of his employment with the City that he believed the best regulation was no regulation at all. Given that he directed the philosophy of the department, any discretion would be in the direction of less regulation. Ms. Bettman said without clear policy oversight, she found that troubling. Ms. Bettman indicated she would offer the staff-proposed motion to the body with an amendment directing the manager to return to the council with the proposed process. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to direct the City Manager to return to the council with a process to revise and simplify Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code using the named guiding principles referred to in the report accepted by the City Council on August 9, 2004. Mr. Kelly supported the motion. He said he had questions about the principles he would send to all the councilors via e-mail, and when staff returned with the process, the council could better understand how they would be applied. Mr. Meisner indicated his intent to offer the staff-proposed motion to the body. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap6, moved to amend the motion by directing the City Manager to proceed with a process to revise and simplify Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code us- MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 27, 2004 Page 6 Work Session