Item 2A: Approval of Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy called for comments and questions from the council. Mr. Poling asked if the DLCD had been advised of the action taken by the council on June 8, which had the potential to create an additional delay in the completion of periodic review, and what position the agency had on the issue. Ms. Nabata responded that the DLCD did not have a position. The agency wanted to assist the City. She said that DLCD had received no request for postponement from Eugene, but the agency was aware of the options being proposed and believed the recommended option fit the parameters of the Senate Bill 543, which eliminated the Land Conservation and Development Commis- sion's ability to give any jurisdiction more than one extension for an existing periodic review process. She believed the plan amendment process was fully open to the council. Ms. Nabeta suggested that the council might want to invite representatives of the City of Corvallis to a meeting to discuss its Natural Features Program, which involved several different tools, including Goal 5. Ms. Nabeta indicated that both Option 3 and the motion before the council allowed the City to meet the timeline outlined in the Agenda Item Summary. Mr. Poling said that the periodic review process had cost the taxpayers about $520,000 to this point. He hoped the proposed process was not similarly expensive, and called for completion of the current effort before embarking on an inventory of the south hills. Speaking to the issue of process, Mr. Poling said that the June 8 motion was brought to the table during a discussion of another topic, that of whether to purchase a particular property. He termed it a "middle of the night" motion that he had not seen until just before the meeting. The vote occurred after a brief, 10- minute discussion. Mr. Poling was not happy with the process used to reach the point at which the council found itself. Mr. Poling believed all councilors shared the same goal of protecting natural habitat. He was willing to support Option 3 as the best way to proceed from this point, and urged that costs be kept down to the degree possible. Mr. Kelly thanked the Planning Division staff for its high quality work in a short time, and thanked Mr. Poling for placing the alternative motion on the floor. Mr. Kelly indicated his own dislike of the process that occurred and said for that reason he believed today's work session had been necessary for a more deliberative approach. He said the option recom- mended by staff appeared to work well for all concerned by concluding the process underway in a timely manner without the need to return to the DLCD and by addressing the issue of upland habitat protection in the south hills as desired by a number of people in the community. Mr. Kelly suggested the outcome for different parcels would be very different so people should not prejudge the process. Mr. Kelly said the informal roundtable, which included a diverse group of attendees, including the mayor, had indicated to the council its support of a commercial and industrial lands inventory and an upland wildlife habitat inventory that went beyond what was contemplated by the City at the time. He said the commercial and industrial lands survey was underway and the motion spoke to the other part of the roundtable's "request to the community." MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 27, 2005 Page 9 Work Session