Laserfiche WebLink
revisit them, since they had been adopted in 1998. Mr. Pryor averred that they “absolutely, positively, <br />explicitly have to be as a preamble. . .rather than something inserted into the specific procedural code.” <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said this was not new, but had been brought up numerous times, most recently during the <br />council’s discussion of the Planning Commission work program. She shared Ms. Bettman’s memory, but <br />had been a member of the City Council when the growth management policies were adopted. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark. He supported bringing the issue to the City Council in a <br />work session, the appropriate format to argue policy versus code. He did not want to jam the growth <br />management policies into a project in which 80 percent of the work was already done. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said almost 100 percent of the growth management policies work was done and they had <br />never been implemented. They were supposed to be overarching governing policies for land use and zoning <br />decisions, but never have been. The way to do that was to put them in the code as overarching governing <br />policies so that new code provisions or interpretations of code had a distinct directive that people could turn <br />to, to say that needed to be a policy by which decisions were made. She denied this had been “jammed in”, <br />stating she had given plenty of notice to council that this was an issue and had spoken to staff during the <br />minor code amendment process. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy understood that Ms. Bettman was not asking for it to be put into the procedural part of the <br />code but rather in the overarching policies of guiding the code. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said it would mean that code provisions and code interpretation had to be consistent with <br />those policies. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Nystrom said, although caution was warranted, it would <br />not present a problem if the growth management policies were included in the preamble to provide a <br />context for how codes were adopted and how new provisions were added. He said it would be difficult to <br />use the growth management policies as approval criteria, and would present complications if that was the <br />intent. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner referred to Mr. Zelenka’s request for a memorandum from staff delineating which of the <br />growth management policies were already in the code, and suggested staff could include background to <br />enable council to determine if the issue warranted a work session. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon noted confusion around the table about what exactly the council was discussing. As she <br />looked at the growth management policies, she believed the City Council had implemented them as well as <br />they could. She disagreed that the council had not tried to implement those policies, noting they showed up <br />in almost every AIS. She was sorry Ms. Bettman was so cynical about the work done by the council and <br />opined the council had done a good job of implementing those policies. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor stated because there were still questions around the table, and he wanted to reach a conclusion in <br />a thoughtful and deliberate way, he could not support Ms. Bettman’s amendment, but did not want it to fall <br />off the table. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said the growth management policies were long-standing adopted City policies. It was <br />important that they get incorporated into the code as an overarching policy direction, but he did not want to <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />