Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to move to revise the confidential memorandum so that it could be released to the public. Ms. Bettman did not accept the amendment. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Clark indicated he would be making a motion. He explained that the thinking behind his motion had to do with his belief in the values of good government; that good government involved being honest, being transparent, being proactive, and maintaining the value of home rule. Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved that the Council direct the City Manager to bring back to the council documents to initiate the rezoning and redesignation of all land that was in- cluded in the City’s adopted supply of commercial, industrial, or residential lands and that has since been acquired by the City for a use that is different from the use anticipated in the adopted inventory study. Mr. Clark explained that he felt the City should be honest about what it was starting with. His understand- ing that of the 1,300 acres identified in the Eco-Northwest study, approximately 900 acres were designated in other fashions and were lands that Eugene wished to protect. He thought it was wise to protect those areas and that they should be designated honestly as not being part of the commercial and industrial supply. Ms. Bettman felt the motion did not speak to the intent of the maker. She thought the motions Mr. Clark intended to make were “extreme” and were “Measure 37-ish in their utter disdain for. . .land use laws.” She averred that the approach the City would take was methodical and intelligent and would ensure that the City grew though with some constraints to ensure efficient use of services and infrastructure. She did not think a portion of the available lands should be taken out of “the whole picture” to be treated differently because of an assumption that a property would never be available for development. She called this assumption “erroneous.” Additionally, Ms. Bettman pointed out that on page 17 of the report, under Eugene/major retail or mixed use, the recently rezoned Crescent site was not reflected. Ms. Gardner replied that the data she referred to was at least six months old. Mayor Piercy asked if the next periodic review would be in eight years. Ms. Jerome replied that the periodic review that was now being completed had been initiated in 1994, with the work program approved by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in 1995. She said at that point all of the tasks were expected to be completed by January 1, 2000. She stated that, technically, the City would not be asked to enter into a periodic review again for seven years. She was uncertain if the DLCD intended to wait or whether it had the means to make the City of Eugene be involved in a periodic review sooner than that. In response to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Jerome explained that the date to begin another periodic review would not be seven years from the present as the City had not completed the one it was in. There was one more work task, a Lane County task, that was “wending its way through” for approval. She said the review would be required seven years from the date that the current review was final and DLCD had given complete approval for it. Mr. Pryor appreciated the issue regarding compliance. He wanted to get to a document that was compliant. He also thought about issues of currency and accuracy and whether it was complementary to the planning efforts being done in the metropolitan area. He did not perceive that the proposed motion would restrain the City in any way. He saw it as being more informative in terms of the land inventory. He believed that if the MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 5 Work Session