Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman said this would create a purpose at the beginning of the code so that staff had a guideline to <br />interpret the provisions. There currently were no unifying principles for staff interpretation. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy asked if incorporating the growth management policies into Chapter 9 in the form of <br />governing policies of code opposed to specific codes was workable. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said if this motion passed it was not automatically incorporated into code, but began the <br />process of considering them as a code amendment along with the other approximately 20 code amendments <br />under consideration by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Nystrom said it was important to understand how the growth management policies would become part <br />of the code. Where they resided in the code could make a difference on how they were used. He opined if <br />they were imported into a purpose section at the beginning of Chapter 9 about how code was implemented <br />and some of the overarching sections at the beginning of the code, it was very different than importing them <br />into approval criteria for land use applications, and would have very different ramifications. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner noted there were currently 20 code amendments moving forward of 200 suggestions received <br />through the public process, for which approximately 80 percent of the work was completed. She suggested <br />that the 80 percent progress on the 20 code amendments not be interrupted, but rather that any changes be <br />applied to future work. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman opposed Ms. Gardner’s suggestion, saying that it postponed the effort yet again, and it should <br />have been in the initial list. Ms. Bettman had been assured it would be included in the current work. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said although Ms. Bettman’s proposal sounded good, she did not want to go back over the work <br />already completed, and apply the principles. Although she understood Ms. Bettman’s desire, she felt bound <br />to keep moving. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Gardner stated there were approximately <br />180 suggestions to review for further action. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon was willing to have the discussion, and although not totally opposed to Ms. Bettman’s <br />concept, she was opposed to Ms. Bettman bringing the issue in at this point. Ms. Solomon suggested <br />having a separate work session on the issue. She opined it was not clear what everyone’s expectations were <br />around the table. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Solomon. Although not as familiar with the growth management policies as <br />Ms. Bettman, Mr. Clark understood that intended motions came before the council as a courtesy to other <br />council members with some time to consider them before acting on them and was therefore unprepared to <br />consider Ms. Bettman’s motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asserted policies and procedures were related but kept separate. Policies defined what would be <br />done, and the procedures were the mechanisms to carry out the policies. The code was equivalent to <br />procedure, i.e., the way in which we do things; whereas policies, such as those before council, were more <br />descriptive of what the council wanted to accomplish. Mr. Pryor was okay with including the growth <br />management policies, as policies, and not as part of the procedures. He would be comfortable if the growth <br />management policies were a preamble or prefacing element that said that the growth management policies <br />governed the City’s procedure, but he was not comfortable with inserting them in the middle of each set of <br />procedures, which would be “crazy.” He liked the growth management policies, and thought it was time to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />