Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Iv1r. Kelly questioned t.he necd f()r the i.nitiation of the code amendments. He pointed out that the Planning Division" s "\fork program included the mmor Land Use Code arnendments, and he did n~)t recall that the council had to imtiate those amendments. For that reason, he qiKstioned \-vhy the l~ouncil needed to act in this case. Ms. Laurence said staff was requesting the council initiate the action to en~;urc the process began in an l)pen pnblic forum and the council was a\vare of w-hat staff ivas iH.kmpting to accon::pl ish, It Vias possible that qm::stions and is~;ues could arise that were not yet identified. 1\1s, Laurence recalled t.hat some of the pre-vious min.or code arnendments had represented '"cleaIH.lp'" actions as OprYlsed to substantive changes. While statfhad bdicvcd it had diredion in the Dmvntown Plan to pr~'ceed with the arnendrnents, it seemed that greater clarity ,yould be given to the c:ffort if the emmcil took formal adion, ~'fr. KeUy suggested th<lt council action to initiate the amendments would be a pnlitical choice as opposed to a legal cboice. He said glven the lack of legal direction. it seemed a political or m<lnagernent judgment. lvi:;. Muir suggested it was a process judgment. Staff believed the more formal action was required because the \vork plan item called hr implementation of the DovmtO\vn Pl;:m. JVlr Kelly said tbat given the swtrresp~)r:se and Ms. Laurenl~e',s remarks about the need for greater clarity in regard to the process, he thought it important vvhatcyer amendments the council initiated be bound by council direction in some way. If the commission or public identified neVi i::;sues duri ng the public process, the commission could send the council a !J1emorandurn asking if it objected to adding the new issue t() the process. Me KeHy believed it W3.S "way overstating" to say that there was consensus among the Planning (\)lmnissioners abuut any changes, as the min.ute~:; provided to the council indi.cated there was consensus to discuss the identlfied areas of concern hut no consensus about the ultim3tt solntions. \Vith regard to the role of the ER.A.C, Mr. Kelly agreed that ER/\C \-vas <1 stakeholder but \vas n.ot representative \If all staKeholders. Ms, Taylor wondered \vhy the item was initially put on tbe Consent Caiendar when it deserved further dIscussion. Ms. Laurence said [1. Vias an. implementation item in the Downtown Plan and a logical extension ofthe work program. l'vls. Taylor hoped anything controversial or that represented a substantial change would be discussed by the council in a work session rather than placed on the Consent Calendae She hoped the council discussed each item identified by the cornmisslon separately. Ms. Solomon found the staff presentation useful <lnd informative. She cxpressed apprcciation for tlw questions being asked by the commission, and wanted to give the commission and staff free rein to do the needed work. She thought a great deal of effort was involved, but that the issues identified vvere a key to the future of d~n\fntown. !\lr. P~lpe concurred with }yIs. Solomon about the value of the presentation. He said th~~ council should consider how it could make the code \vork better and help realize its vision fur do\vntown. He reitcrakd a previous suggestion that the City consider angled parkmg in its downtown to accommodate rame autonlobiJcs. Mr. Pap\.~ Llvored looking at not only downtown, but at the courthouse area as ivdL JVls, Bettnlan thought it a stretch to say the four issucs before the council implemented thc DOWtltO\\iH Plan, which was conceptual in Juany ways. She puinted out that none l)fthe initiatives impkmented the trolley system, which was also included in the Downtown Plan. She suggested that a couple of the issues were counter-productive to the realization of the plan. MINUTES-I'~ugene City Council WOl'k Session September 12, 2005 Page 6