CC Minutes - 02/02/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall February 2, 1998 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Pat Fart, Nancy Nathanson, Tim Laue, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Ken Tollenaar. The February 2, 1998, work session of the Eugene City Council was called to order at 5:30 p.m.; Mayor Jim Torrey presiding. I. WORK SESSION/ACTION: RESOLUTION CONCERNING GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY POLICIES Jim Croteau, Planning and Development Department, said that the council heard testimony on the revised Growth Management Study policies on January 26, 1998. He reviewed the contents of the meeting agenda packet and called the council's attention to Attachment A, an itemized listing of proposed changes to the policies based on the public testimony received. Mr. Croteau said that Gregory McLaughlan and Jan Spencer had proposed that the council return to the Planning Commission's recommended language for Policy 1 (struck text proposed for deletion; italicized text proposed for addition): "~,~,v."+, Maintain the existing Eugene urban growth boundary by taking actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and underused land within the boundary more efficiently." Mr. Meisner asked if the City could legally maintain the urban growth boundary as an individual jurisdiction as the revised text suggested. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the Board of County Commissioners had reservations about the policy as it was concerned it would preclude the board from exercising its authority to initiate an urban growth boundary amendment. The board had been comfortable with the policy when it learned of the council's change. Mr. Meisner reminded those who criticized thecouncil in testimony for removing clarity from the policies recommended by the Planning Commission that the council had eliminated the nebulous phrase "for the foreseeable future" from Policy 1, which would have provided those wishing to expand the boundary with the argument that the need for expansion was unforeseen. Mr. Meisner preferred to retain the council's revision with the understanding it was the council's intention was to maintain the boundary with the knowledge it could not do so alone. Mr. Tollenaar said that comments similar to those voiced by the Board of County Commissioners were expressed by members of the Springfield City Council, who were reassured when they heard the council's reasoning for the change. He did not intend to support the proposed change, but pointed out that it was not possible to maintain a completely rigid urban growth boundary. Its MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 1 5:30 p.m.