Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly asserted that, while it could be legally "cleaner" to pass this resolution, from a fiscal standpoint, it <br />would be more prudent to address the resolution in January after the ODOT report was available. <br /> <br />Tom Boyatt, Oregon Department of Transportation staff, stated that senior staff from the City had met with <br />ODOT staff and considered the evaluation report and the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) issue to be <br />different issues. He stressed that ODOT was trying to build a project and in order to do that had to <br />reevaluate the data. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome affirmed that the record was closed on this matter. She commented that she was unable to speak <br />precisely to costs, but in land use even if circumstances change in time, the item on remand was bound to the <br />record the council reviewed initially, unless there was a decision to reopen the record. She stated that, <br />substantively, the council was bound to what was in the existing 19-volume record. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to table the item until January 26, 2004. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon conveyed her support for the resolution and admonished councilors to quit stalling. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson concurred that the council should move forward on the vote. She opined that it was not only <br />cleaner, it was important from a process perspective. She stressed that the council was asked to address <br />certain technical and detailed points and should something come before the council in the future that required <br />changing, the council could address it at that time. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed that the resolution was simply a finalization of the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) <br />process. However, she felt the fact that it had been presented in a manner that preempted the evaluation <br />report was unsettling. She asserted there had been meetings that she had not been present for and, though <br />she had asked for a summary of these discussions, she had not received such a summary. She alleged the <br />information was concealed from some of the councilors and questioned why the information was not <br />available. She supported the motion to table. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion to table. He suggested the remand may be somewhat directionless <br />without having seen the evaluation report. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly called the motion to table a move toward more efficiency, as it would eliminate having to <br />readdress the issue should further information alter it. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor voiced her support for the motion to table the item. She asserted the public also did not know <br />what was being voted on. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner clarified his vote had nothing to do with the findings and commended the staff for the work <br />that had been done. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked what the relationship was between the evaluation report, which might or might not ask <br />the City Council to do something different, and the adoption of findings. Ms. Jerome responded that even if <br />the report suggested a substantial change in boundary, staff would most likely bring the same resolution <br />before the council. She stressed the importance of not "leaving a LUBA remand hanging there." <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 5 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />