05/28/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Boles said that if reconsideration of the issue were postponed, he would like to postpone it until Ms. Ehrman could be present. Mayor Miller pointed out that the council's next meeting, after its May 29 meeting, would be after the next MPC meeting. Mr. MacDonald suggested someone from the City Attorney's office should be present at this meeting so that the council could discuss its options in this matter. He said Mr. Gary had told him that the MPC could return this issue to the council in one of three ways: 1) the original version; 2) the origi- nal version as modified; or 3) a denial of the original motion. The City Attorney's opinion was that the MPC could return the original ver- sion to the council as the committee's recommendation. Ms. Norris said staff would attempt to contact Mr. Gary to see if he could attend this meeting. Mr. Nicholson said he was unhappy that he had to vote against the Blue Water Boats amendment because one of his personal goals was to create industrial employment within the city. However, he said testimony at the final public hearing on this amendment led him to believe that the request for extension of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was based on the existence of cheaper land in this location. He said that, based on this criteria, it would be diffi- cult to deny an extension of the UGB for any significant project. Ms. Bascom said that the UGB was a boundary established to encourage compact urban growth and that the planning commissions were dedicated to this con- cept. She said she felt those who opposed the amendment were using obstruc- tionist tactics to keep the issue from being approved. She said the council needed to view the situation from an intergovernmental perspective. Mr. Nicholson said there was no point in the MPC process if individual bodies participating in the MPC could not question the decisions of their partners. Mayor Miller said the purpose of this night's meeting should be to determine the will of the majority of the council and to determine a process by which this determination could be reached. He said it appeared that Mr. MacDonald would move to reconsider the council's original vote. Mr. Boles said that if this issue did not go to the MPC, Eugene had no assur- ances that Springfield and Lane County would agree to update the Metropolitan General Plan. Ms. Bascom said she did not think the "threat" of the council voting in opposition to Blue Water Boats would convince the other two juris- dictions to participate in the update. Mr. MacDonald said he, too, wanted a full review of the Metropolitan General Plan. However, he said next year would be the plan's fifth anniversary and many preliminary steps in the update were under way, such as the Commercial and Industrial lands Studies. He said the review depended on the full co- operation of all three local jurisdictions and that if the City attempted to force participation, it might instead just "harden the opposition." MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 1991 Page 3