Laserfiche WebLink
it continued to be a land use decision. She explained there would not be any legal force with <br />regard to the strategies as it would be an aspirational document. Ms. Brotherton opined there <br />would not be any advantages to adopt the document by resolution. She then spoke to the project <br />list and said that if the council adopts the list separately, that action ensures that the City could <br />respond to changing community needs. Mr. Lidz added that if council adopts the plan by <br />ordinance, it would become part of the City Code. In response to a final question posed by Ms. <br />Taylor, Ms. Weiss opined that if the 1989 Plan was not repealed, it would not reflect all the work <br />that has gone into the planning document over the past three years; however, she conceded that it <br />would not harm the City to retain it for a short period of time. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz complimented staff on the product it created and said she supported Option B after <br />hearing the concerns expressed by council members. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor encouraged the council to adopt the plan and opined that there was value in <br />the proposal to adopt the projects list as a separate document. <br /> <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to split <br />the proposed ordinance into two documents: 1) an ordinance that repeals the <br />1989 plan; and, 2) a resolution that adopts the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a <br />stand-alone internal document, i.e., not as a refinement to the Metro Plan. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for comments on the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opined it was not appropriate for the council to call for a bond measure until at least <br />2010, as there were other higher priorities that need to be addressed in the interim. However, she <br />reiterated that she was motivated to have a project list in place in order to recover the costs of <br />increasing the capacity of Eugene parks to serve new development. In terms of the project list, <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out there was a document created by the Public Works Rates Advisory <br />Committee that would serve the council as it reviewed the list. She asked staff to provide the <br />council with that information. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Manager Taylor replied that the resolution <br />under discussion could be brought back to the council in early February. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman encouraged staff to allow adequate time for responses to Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape?’s <br />questions. She pointed out that the issue of the 1,300 acres of residential land would be made on <br />a case-by-case basis. She explained that properties not owned by the City were vetted through <br />the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) process, followed by Budget Committee and City <br />Council scrutiny. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor questioned how the Metro Plan would be affected if Option B moved forward. Mr. <br />Lidz replied there would be no direct effect to the Metro Plan. Mr. Carlson added that the <br />existing policies in the Metro Plan would not change; however, Option B would change the way <br />the City addresses “Goal 8” from the 1989 plan to the PROS Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Pryor <br />stated he could support Option B with the understanding that a project list must be clearly linked <br />to the overall process. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly stated he would support the motion and requested that staff provide a specific outreach <br />to the Friends of Eugene to address its concerns in a timely manner. He then spoke to the issue of <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />