Laserfiche WebLink
<br />M I N U T E S <br /> <br />Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br />McNutt Room, City Hall <br /> <br />January 18, 2005 <br />Noon <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: Jennifer Solomon, Andrea Ortiz, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, <br />Bonny Bettman, Gary Pape?, George Poling, Chris Pryor. <br /> <br /> <br />The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. <br /> <br /> <br />A. ACTION: <br />An Ordinance Adopting a New Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan (“PROS <br />Comprehensive Plan”) as a Refinement of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan <br />Area General Plan; Repealing Resolution No. 4127 and the Eugene Parks and <br />Recreation Plan Adopted Therein; Amending Section 9.8010 of the Eugene <br />Code, 1971; Repealing Section 9.9550 of that Code; Adopting a Severability <br />Clause; and Providing an Effective Date <br /> <br />Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss provided an overview of the Agenda Item Summary <br />(AIS) and announced the following events that would ensue if council approval was granted on <br />the PROS Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />? <br /> A discussion of a potential bond measure for the November 2006 election for the <br />above proposed ordinance would be presented to the City Council in February. <br />? <br /> A discussion of the proposed Project and Priority Plan would be presented to the City <br />Council on February 27. <br />? <br /> A public hearing was scheduled for March 13. <br />? <br /> Action on the Project and Priority Plan was scheduled for April 10. <br /> <br />Ms. Weiss reported that a fair amount of oral and written testimony was received at the December <br />12 public hearing on the plan and she noted that staff addressed the concerns raised in those <br />testimonies in Attachment B in the AIS. She pointed to two specific issues: <br /> <br />(1) Concern over the removal of the project list from the proposed plan <br />. Ms. Weiss <br />explained that State statute does not require a project list to be a land use document and <br />therefore the City was consistent with State law. Additionally, she pointed out that it was <br />in the interest of the council to allow the project list to be a living document so that as the <br />environment and/or community priorities evolve and funding opportunities arise, the list <br />could be amended without the need to go through the expensive and timely land use <br />amendment process. In contrast, Ms. Weiss noted that if the project list was adopted as a <br />council resolution, the process to amend the list would be radically shortened to a 30- to <br />60-day process. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />