Laserfiche WebLink
comprehensive plan adjustment with the City of Springfield, Ms. Jerome said a number of policies needed <br />to be addressed, not the least of which was the text that assumed a single UGB. A number of the policies <br />in the residential lands section implicitly assumed a shared UGB. The necessary amount of text changes <br />was a large project. Additionally, setting the UGB was on the Metro Plan diagram would require a <br />significant amount of work. While some of the amendments required approval by more than one <br />jurisdiction, the bill indicated that others did not. Thus, some of the changes would require collaboration <br />with Lane County and the City of Springfield. There was no date neither imposed by other jurisdictions <br />nor required by the legislation. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark understood that the Springfield City Council developed language for the proposed Metro Plan <br />changes, and had asked the Eugene City Council to work with them. He further understood that the <br />Springfield City Council decided that it would disengage if the Eugene City Council was not willing to <br />work cooperatively. He asked if the Eugene City Council was willing to work with the Springfield City <br />Council. He was hopeful that the Eugene City Council would not defer the process but rather work <br />collaboratively. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz did not consider a bill presented at the State legislature an indication of a willingness to work <br />together. She recalled no invitation to talk with the other jurisdictions nor was there an indication a <br />problem existed around Metro Plan issues. She believed the Planning Commission’s work would move <br />forward if the work program was not approved. She was concerned that commissioners felt they would <br />not be able to do as charged by the City Council without approval of the FY08 work program. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll stated the Commercial Lands Study was outdated. He added that lack of direction on HB 3337 <br />prohibited the Planning Commission from addressing planning comprehensively. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jones said the City of Springfield contacted the City of <br />Eugene asking what position the Eugene City Council had taken on the HB 3337 issue. Today’s meeting <br />would be the first opportunity to discuss HB 3337. <br /> <br />Planning and Development Executive Manager Susan Muir said the City of Springfield sent information to <br />the City of Eugene Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations (CCIGR) during the 2007 <br />Legislative Session. Since the bill passed, the City of Springfield had notified the City of Eugene about <br />where it was in the process. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz preferred to have good “family” relations with the City of Springfield. She would not support <br />putting the motion forward without removal of the recommendation regarding HB 3337. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner suggested that the City Council accept the City Manager-suggested motion to amend the <br />work program and give direction to the City Manager related to specific work program items. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor appreciated the work of the Planning Commission and the enormous amount of work it <br />undertook to provide the underpinnings in the form of collection of information and analysis for City <br />Council decisions. The emotional reaction around the City of Springfield and the legislature obscured <br />some of the other conversations that needed to happen. He suggested that the council talk in terms of what <br />was in the best interest of Eugene. He felt that most of the Planning Commission work program was <br />desirable, while recognizing that some elements made some people uncomfortable. He suggested moving <br />forward with as much as possible, and not including those parts around which more extensive <br />conversations were needed. He opined it was important for the City Council to give as much direction as <br />possible to the Planning Commission to enable it to do its work. Mr. Pryor welcomed a more extensive <br />conversation around those elements for the best interests of Eugene for which there was not agreement on <br />the council. Having information was preferred over not having information, whether it was related to the <br />Planning Commission developing recommendations or the City Council making decisions. It was difficult <br />to try to govern a community when information was specifically excluded because the answer was not <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />