Laserfiche WebLink
location depended on the existence of adequate land supplies. Mr. Tollenaar said that supplies <br />were adequate for the time being, but that would not be the case at some time in the future. He <br />believed that the word "maintain" would create a false impression. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that all the policies were aspirational in nature. She thought "maintain" was a <br />stronger word and the word she preferred. Regarding the adequacy of the land supply, Ms. <br />Taylor believed that the State could change that requirement at any time, and she did not think <br />that the council should be precluded from acting as it preferred. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey did not favor a change from the current recommendation. He reminded the council <br />that he had previously indicated there were instances where the council must be responsible <br />enough to consider needed adjustments in the urban growth boundary. Mr. Torrey reminded the <br />council of the prison siting situation, and said that if the State constructed the prison in Junction <br />City, the council would have circumvented the intent of the boundary through its inability to <br />discuss a boundary adjustment. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved to return to the text for Policy 1 recommended by the <br /> Planning Commission. The motion died for lack of a second. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau said that Ms. Nathanson had proposed the following change to Policy 5 (struck text <br />proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "Work cooperatively with Metro area <br />partners (Springfield and Lane County) and other nearby cities to control avoid urban sprawl and <br />preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban growth boundaries." <br /> <br /> Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to replace the word <br /> "control" in Policy 5 with the word "avoid." <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that "control" was a relatively neutral term; and "avoid" more indicative of the <br />council's intent. <br /> <br /> Roll call vote: the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau said that Donald Upson proposed in testimony to eliminate redundancy between <br />Policy 1 and Policy 6 by replacing Policy 6 with the following text (struck text proposed for <br />deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "!,-,cr~so do,qsit¥ of ,qow housi,q,.3 dovo!opmo,-,t <br />while mMaintaini,q,.3 the character and livability of individual neighborhoods." Alternatively, he <br />proposed eliminating Policy 6 and adding the phrase "in order to maintain the character and <br />livability of individual neighborhoods" to Policy 9. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner preferred to retain the two separate policies because Policy 9 was specific to <br />mitigating the impacts of density and infill and contained no broad statement regarding <br />maintaining character and livability. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tollenaar moved, seconded by Mr. Fart, to accept the revision to Policy 6 <br /> proposed by Mr. Upson. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that the revision would eliminate redundancy with Policy 1 and emphasize the <br />remaining statement. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 2 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />