Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M I N U T E S <br /> <br /> <br />Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br />McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall—777 Pearl Street <br />Eugene, Oregon <br /> <br /> November 21, 2007 <br /> Noon <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer <br />Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. <br /> <br /> <br />Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. <br /> <br /> <br />A. WORK SESSION: Planning Process for Eugene Water & Electric Board Riverfront Property <br /> <br />City Manager pro tem Angel Jones recognized the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) commissioners <br />who were in attendance. She introduced Associate Planner Nan Laurence to provide an overview of recent <br />activities. <br /> <br />Ms. Laurence said that City and EWEB staff had been working to develop a memorandum of understanding <br />(MOU) to outline the process for master planning of the EWEB site. She said binding aspects of the MOU <br />pertained to the process of master planning, such as appointment of an advisory team and participation of <br />the community at large. She said other aspects of the MOU were description and nonbinding on the council <br />or any other regulatory body reviewing the master plan; those would include the description of open space or <br />mix of uses. She said the EWEB commissioners had reviewed and unanimously approved the MOU. She <br />said the master planning process was structured to provide as much council involvement as possible while <br />maintaining protocol around the issue of quasi-judicial decisions, namely that the council could not <br />participate in the development of a plan that they would later be involved in evaluating. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman felt there were inconsistencies between the EWEB process and the process undertaken with <br />respect to the hospital. She said the council had passed a motion asking for the provisions of the MOU to be <br />brought back for discussion, not approval. She said there was no reason, because of its quasi-judicial role, <br />that the council would have to endorse or approve the MOU. She saw the definitions of mixed use and open <br />space as a land use issue and the council directing staff to utilize those definitions via the MOU was a land <br />use decision. She said the council could adopt those definitions in a parallel process. She commented that <br />the MOU was intended to define the role of staff, but it did not; it did discuss timelines and if the council <br />agreed to those timelines it would violate its quasi-judicial role. She said the agreement was between staff <br />and EWEB; the council could approve the tenets as they applied to the citizen advisory committee and <br />appointment process but should not approve the MOU. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein said the only reason for the council’s approval of the MOU was because the <br />MOU committed the council to certain actions. He would be willing to craft a different motion that would <br />address Ms. Bettman’s concerns. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 21, 2007 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />