CC Minutes - 01/18/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

two documents. Mr. Lidz said he would be willing to pursue the concerns as expressed by Mr. Pryor and Mr. Pape?; however, he voiced support for the plan as a stand-alone document. Mr. Kelly pointed out that the proposed schedule for the project list to be adopted was April. He reminded the council that if the plan was adopted as a refinement plan, then opportunities for new parks in the future that were not now on the list would be subject to a six-month land use process to change the plan. On the other hand, Mr. Kelly reiterated Ms. Weiss’s statement that if the plan was adopted by council resolution, concerns about timelines to modify become moot. He suggested that Option B may resolve some of the concerns raised by council members. City Attorney Kathryn Brotherton countered that adoption of the PROS Comprehensive Plan as a resolution does not make the document easily amendable. She explained it would still have the land use timeline added to it. She clarified that if the plan was not adopted as a refinement plan, the land use amendment process must still be adhered to. Mr. Kelly commented that it was his understanding that the council could either adopt the plan as a stand-alone document or as land use document. Ms. Brotherton reiterated that the plan could be adopted as a stand-alone document or as a refinement plan; however, the stand-alone PROS Comprehensive Plan would be considered a land use decision. The stand-alone project list would not be a land use decision. Ms. Solomon opined there would be a lack of accountability in the plan without a project list. She also voiced concern that the inventory included in the plan does not encompass all of the other providers of recreational facilities in Eugene and therefore sets a bad premise to conduct a public campaign for a bond measure. Finally, she pointed out that the Friends of Eugene, the Santa Clara residents, and the Lane County Homebuilders Association all voiced concern about the plan as proposed. She urged the council to reevaluate the proposal. Mr. Poling voiced appreciation to staff for its efforts; however, he concurred with Mr. Pryor’s comments and additionally pointed to his experience as a member of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission (MWMC). He explained that group approved a 20-year facility plan that did not include a project list and ultimately was informed the project list must be included. He spoke to Option B and pointed out that in order to alter the resolution, public hearings must be held. Mr. Poling then spoke to the issue of the proposed additional 1,300 acres and questioned how they would impact the buildable land supply. Mr. Lidz clarified that with regard to the MWMC issue, LUBA did return the Public Facilities and Services Plan to the MWMC for additional detail; however, the Facilities Plan, which was adopted as a stand-alone document by the commission, was approved by LUBA. Ms. Taylor stated that the bond measure should move forward in the November election and asked if the ordinance must be adopted for that process to be put before the voters. Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson responded that the ordinance as proposed would not need to be adopted. He then referred to the work session on election sequencing and noted that the council asked for a limited bond measure possibility in 2006 and directed staff to present opportunities for land acquisitions or other projects which did not have significant operating costs. Mr. Carlson added that it was not intended for a bond measure to be driven by the implementation of the plan. Ms. Taylor opined that the project list should be a separate document; however, she questioned how a resolution to adopt the plan would impact the process. Ms. Brotherton reiterated that if the council approves Option B, it was adopting the plan by resolution as a stand-alone document and MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 18, 2005 Page 1 Work Session