CC Minutes - 11/12/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman questioned the process. She noted that the previous LUBA remand had been addressed through an ordinance and the one before the council at the present meeting was a resolution. Ms. Jerome explained that the resolution did not adopt findings. She stated that the previous LUBA remand had involved a plethora of issues raised in the appeal. She said in some cases LUBA did some research on its own to determine whether the record needed more information, but in this case LUBA was only concerned with a couple of issues and remanded in a way that did not require the City to reopen the record. She clarified that the council was not adopting additional findings and the resolution was a remand response and explanation of findings so did not need to be in the form of an ordinance. Mr. Pap6 raised a point of order. He questioned whether the discussion was still centered on the motion to table. Ms. Bettman responded that the motion to table brought up the process and the discussion on the process should include understanding why it was a resolution and not an ordinance as well as why it should be voted upon at the present meeting. Mr. Kelly, noting Ms. Jerome had stated that nothing in the reevaluation report would cause staff to change the explanation of findings, said that one sub-assignment of error had to do with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction. He suggested that the reevaluation report could contain a change in the intersection between the Parkway and Beltline Road, which could radically change the VMT. Ms. Jerome responded that the assignment of error there indicated the City and County needed to make policies that implemented some specific rules. She stated that the City explained to LUBA that the policies were not needed, the City did not have such policies, and this would not change regardless of how a new facility would affect VMT. Mr. Kelly disagreed with this. Ms. Taylor questioned the reason this resolution needed to be addressed at the present meeting. Ms. Jerome responded that the reason it was before the council was that staff had received the final opinion from the court on October 8 which finalized the court actions. She commented that the resolution had been reviewed by the County Attorney, who would be bringing it before the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Mayor Torrey called for the vote. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Mr. Meisner, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Taylor voting in favor and Ms. Solomon, Mr. Pap6, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Nathanson voting in opposition. Mayor Torrey voted in opposition and the motion to table the resolution failed on a final vote of 5:4. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome clarified that an ordinance was a greater process than a resolution. She stressed that the resolution could be conducted as an ordinance, but there was no legal reason to do so, as there was no policy language being adopted. Mr. Pap6 likened the discussion to West Eugene Parkway (WEP) ;;bashing." He asked for reassurance that the document before the council was %ullet-proof." Ms. Jerome affirmed it was a solid document. Mr. Pap6 asked why the remand was not left open. Ms. Jerome said it could be appealed again, but the matters would be limited to these four. She stated that the policy choice had been made to go forward with the ordinances. She explained that the changes were technically in the plans but they would not be acknowledged until they were either not appealed or until a completely favorable opinion was rendered from the courts. She further clarified that the status of ~in effect but not acknowledged" left a city open to MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 12, 2003 Page 6 Regular Meeting