Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor said anyone involved in civic activities in 1995-1996 could not help being aware of the broad- based, expensive effort on the part of the City which the City could not afford to replicate. Mr. Clark said it was the purview of every City Council to set its policies during its time of service. While he appreciated and respected all of the public input that went into the growth management policies development twelve years ago, he was not as familiar with them as he would like. He asked for a work session to review the growth management policies. He felt strange encumbering a future council to the policies when they might want to change them. Ms. Ortiz said she and her daughter had been active in the community in the mid-1990s and she never heard anything about the growth management policies process in the Bethel neighborhood. She did not know what had been done for outreach. She asked if the motion passed, would the work already completed move forward. Ms. Gardner responded that passage of the motion would not affect the work currently underway on the 20 code amendments in process. Mayor Piercy summarized the motion on the table. Work would continue on the code amendments that were in motion. In the future the City Council would investigate how this would apply to procedure parts of Chapter 9. The growth management policies would only be put in the code as an overarching policy to the code, having basically the same emphasis as they now have. The motion passed, 5:3, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting in opposi- tion. Mr. Pryor explained his vote, stating that his vote was an acknowledgement that this was an official City policy that needed to be recognized in the appropriate place. He explicitly heard that it would be in a place where it would not be applied procedurally; it would be applied as an overarching policy. Ms. Jerome summarized her understanding of the council’s motion as being that they were talking about incorporating part of the pending minor code amendments growth management policies into chapter 9 to serve as policy direction and to direct the City Manager to schedule a future work session to talk about further implementation of them as criteria. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the work program of the Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Planning Commission to address only the deadline driven requirements de- tailed in HB 3337 which were the inventory of existing residential capacity, the residential demand analysis and determination, and to specifically delete consid- eration of UGB boundary changes other than any consideration required by HB 3337. Ms. Bettman explained the work program should be focused on only what was legally required until the council had a work session. Her objection was based on a pre-supposed decision by the council. Ms. Solomon asserted that the motion was completely inappropriate and premature in light of the up- coming work session in January. She was not prepared to move on the proposal. Mr. Clark stated he had many additional questions about implementation of HB 3337 and was not prepared to have the fuller discussion today, prior to the January work session. He wanted a much fuller discussion MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 7 Work Session