CC Minutes - 04/08/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman agreed with Ms. Taylor that public hearings should not be directly followed by council action, but in this case she believed the City was in a technical legal bind. She termed the ordinances a stop-gap measure, and said the next steps in the process should be expedited. She was not happy about the situation, but did not think the council had a choice. Mr. Meisner acknowledged the concern expressed by Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman but pointed out that the topic was one that was the subject of numerous hearings and considerable discussion. He did not object to extending the public record to receive additional written comment, but noted that many of those he had heard from were not concerned with the action before the council, but rather with the code itself and their desire to address new topics or change those sections of the code they disagreed with. He was not interested in using the ordinances as an opportunity to make further changes, given that future work sessions were scheduled on the remanded items. Ms. Nathanson noted the immense amount of citizen and staff work and time spent on the update. She said she perceived the ordinances before the council as its attempt to reinstate those elements of the Land Use Code Update it felt were legally supportable. It was also her perception that the ordinances addressed those sections that were not contested, regarded issues the City prevailed upon, or addressed things that were easily fixed. She asked for staff reassurance at the hearing that the ordinances fit those categories. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the time line for adoption of the ordinances, Mr. Carlson said that the timeliness of the process was driven by council interest. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Klein said that if appealed, the ordinances would not take effect until after the ordinances were deemed acknowledged. He reviewed the likely time line if the ordinances were appealed. Mr. Fart thought it would be a shame to waste the long time that had been spent on the update and the work that had been done by many citizens. He also wanted the assurance requested by Ms. Nathanson. He was also concerned about taking action immediately following the hearing. Mr. Rayor preferred to proceed cautiously in adopting the ordinances. He wanted to know how the council could address the concerns raised by Al Johnson. Mr. Pap8 also preferred to proceed cautiously. He determined from Ms. Childs that there was some possibility the City might end up in the position of processing applications under three code versions. He further determined from Ms. Jerome that no one ordinance addressed issues upon which the City prevailed and issues upon which the City was not challenged. Ms. Jerome indicated that she was not prepared to answer the question of whether that could be done because she had not done the analysis of whether that could be done in a manner consistent with State statutes and planning goals. Mayor Torrey said that there was a lack of trust on the part of at least two community organizations about the council's actions regarding the code. He did not ask that the council "stop the train" totally, but suggested it provide some amount of time to give everyone the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of the proposed ordinance changes. He did not think the public would object to the delay. He said that the public did not see the material before the council until the previous Wednesday, and he had received requests that the council postpone action. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 8, 2002 Page 4 Work Session