My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 01/26/09 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:28:00 PM
Creation date
1/23/2009 8:58:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/26/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Zelenka said the Charter amendment on the ballot changed the ability of the City Council to use its <br />discretion about whether or not there was a Police Auditor and Civilian Review Board oversight function; it <br />made that function mandatory. He said there were no changes required in the ordinance to fulfill that <br />Charter amendment, as the current language was consistent with that. He said the 12 changes proposed by <br />Ms. Bettman did not address that issue; they were issues that the council had discussed and he supported, <br />but they had not been presented to the voters. He preferred to stay with the current process. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz clarified that he was not arguing for or against obtaining a second legal opinion. He felt it was his <br />responsibility to identify issues that he felt the council should be made aware of, such as contract language, <br />and that could present potential problems. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Zelenka about what the voters had approved and the 12 changes proposed by <br />Ms. Bettman. He there were there varying opinions about the constraints imposed on the council by the <br />Charter and suggested that the issue be clarified at some point in the future. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman cited Section 16 of the Charter that the City Manager shall make all purchases. She said the <br />council could direct that a particular contract be entered into; it was not prohibited. She disagreed with Mr. <br />Zelenka’s comment that the voters changed the police oversight function from discretionary to mandatory. <br />She said the council chose to change all of the language from “may” to “shall,” including mandating <br />authorities as they were listed in the Charter. She asserted that the current ordinance language was <br />inconsistent with the Charter as amended and an independent legal analysis of how to proceed was needed. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy reminded the council that the motion to form a committee authorized it to review the issues <br />raised by Ms. Bettman on November 10 and 17, 2008, and report back to the council on March 11, 2009, <br />with recommendations on amendments to the Police Auditor ordinance. <br /> <br />The motion failed 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: <br /> Opportunity Siting Update <br /> <br />Mr. Ruiz introduced Patricia Thomas and Teri Harding, of the Planning Division, to present the update on <br />opportunity siting. <br /> <br />Ms. Thomas used a slide presentation to provide background on the project, activities to-date and next steps. <br />She said council direction to staff included incorporating opportunity siting as a primary strategy for <br />achieving density targets in mixed use centers. She said formation of a Planning Committee subcommittee, <br />neighborhood tours, online surveys and sounding boards, eventually resulted in the formation of an <br />Opportunity Siting (OS) Task Team of a dozen members. She described the composition of the team and <br />said it was charged with studying the issues, developing a neighborhood process, identifying hypothetical <br />test sites, studying market demand and feasibility and implementation. <br /> <br />Ms. Thomas reviewed the issues considered during the task team’s study of market demand, compatibility <br />and feasibility. She said the task team developed a methodology for working with neighborhoods and the <br />Jefferson Westside Neighbors volunteered to test the methodology in neighborhood workshops. As a result <br />of the test exercise, she said it was apparent that there were three important elements to identifying sites: <br />neighborhood character, development impacts and matching development type to the site. She explained <br />how hypothetical sites in the neighborhood were used for economic study of market demand and feasibility. <br />She said the task team anticipated forwarding recommendations to the Planning Commission in mid-2009 <br />and the next steps in the process were: <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.