CC Minutes - 05/27/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

legally form the basis for an appeal. He likened the situation before the council to a situation where a judge directed jury members to disregard testimony they had heard in court. Ms. Bettman asked if the process being proposed was the only process open to the council. She preferred to reconsider the entire issue and suggested that the council retroactively extend the public comment period and retain the letters in the record. Mr. Klein indicated that could be done. He said that if the motion to reconsider the appeal passed, the council would be back at the point of considering adoption, and then it had many options open to it. Ms. Bettman asked the effect of extending the record. Mr. Klein said that it raised the issue of whether the public had been treated fairly, and whether other members of the public should have an opportunity to raise additional issues. He suggested that if the council wanted to add the letters in question to the record, it would reopen the record, add the letters, and leave the record open for a period sufficient for others to provide comment. Ms. Taylor believed the only way that the situation could be made fair would be if the neighbors had the opportunity to write a letter to the City Council regarding their version of the meeting between residents and the developers that the council could be directed by the City Attorney to disregard. As it was, the letters were in councilors' minds and part of the decision-making process. Ms. Nathanson said she would vote to reconsider the motion for the reasons stated by Ms. Taylor. She said that if she was to disregard the letter, she would have to change the way she voted on the appeal. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to reject from the record Mr. Anslow's letter of May 9, Barbara Lee's letter of May 14, and any other documents from the public which were not a part of the record when it closed. Ms. Bettman did not see how the rejecting the letter from Mr. Anslow affected the decision-making process. It was information that people had and could not easily disregard. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend to add the May 9 letter from Mr. Anslow and the May 14 letter from Barbara Lee to the public record and to leave the record open until Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. so that others can offer comment. The motion to amend failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting yes. The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. The council reconsidered the motion passed on May 12, 2003, which was to adopt the final order included in the meeting packet providing for the Whitbeck application to go through the subdivision process rather than the planned unit development (PUD) process: Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to affirm the Planning Commission's decision that only the standard subdivision procedures should apply to the proposed four-lot subdivision, including the final order and MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 27, 2003 Page 4 Work Session