Laserfiche WebLink
on the specific motion because it removed some issues that needed more discussion. He was not interested <br />in changing or limiting the staff recommendation. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said if the City Council approved the work program as recommended, it would be approving <br />staff moving forward and scoping a commercial and residential lands assessment. Staff would return to the <br />council before any further steps were taken for approval. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the council was authorizing policy changes by accepting the work program. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz wanted to move forward, noting a number of people from the community whom she respected <br />had signed a letter asking the City Council to move forward. She said she would vote against Ms. <br />Bettman’s motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Jerome said it was the City Council’s prerogative to set its <br />policy, that policy could differ from past policy, and the council could act on the issue in any way it saw <br />fit. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka wanted to move forward with what the council needed to move forward with, which was a <br />housing study and having a fuller discussion on January 14, 2008, about the other issues when there was <br />sufficient time to dedicate to the topic. He said he would support the motion on the table. <br /> <br />The motion failed, 3:5, councilors Clark, Ortiz, Poling, Prior, and Solomon voting <br />in opposition. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the Planning Commission <br />work program to elevate the water quality protection ordinance and the water re- <br />sources conservation overlay zone. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked Ms. Bettman why it deserved a higher priority. Ms. Bettman said it was out there, it was <br />not a high enough priority and the council was not really acting on it. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said he liked that staff used its expertise and professionalism to develop a work program it felt <br />would be most effective within the available resources and time they had to work. When councilors <br />elevated things because they liked them, or they were popular with councilors, the council was saying it <br />wanted to provide a direction based on preference for which it was not as well informed as staff. He was <br />inclined to stick with the work program as submitted because staff knew what resources were available and <br />they were the ones who had to do the work. While recognizing it was the purview of the City Council to set <br />priority, in this case, the council needed to be informed by staff, and he felt the work program as submitted <br />was informed. He was not inclined to make changes, recognizing if one thing was pushed up, something <br />else would need to be pushed down, and he was not included to push anything down that staff had set as a <br />priority because staff priorities were reasonable at this point. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said although he was not fully versed on why staff had prioritized the work program as it had, he <br />assumed staff knew what they were talking about. He asked Ms. Bettman what she would identify as a <br />lower priority as a trade-off to elevate her suggestion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if other communities had a rotating code that was constantly being amended. The City <br />had undertaken a huge process with the Land Use Code Update, had processed hundreds of code <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />