Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark advocated for a focus on where the council wanted to be rather than where it thought it should <br />be. He preferred to take a more aspirational approach rather than a "safe harbor" approach that merely <br />complied with State law. <br />Mayor Piercy suggested there was a tension between the short-term goals, the aspirational, and what <br />appeared to be long -term trends. She was unsure how to address that tension. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with the remarks of Mayor Piercy and Mr. Clark. However, he thought the City <br />needed to take a more holistic and long -term approach; it was good to know "where we are on the dial" <br />but he did not want to make abrupt adjustments because growth was not a smooth steady line. He thought <br />the staff proposal made sense. <br />Mr. Brown supported the staff proposal but observed the trend charts related to population and <br />employment growth shared by staff demonstrated much was out of the City's control. He supported <br />continued regional planning and noted the many service delivery and planning partnerships that already <br />existed, such as the Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. <br />Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Clark about the need for real time analysis so the land use system was able to <br />respond more quickly. He advocated for having a plan in place to support that response. <br />Mr. Pryor suggested the City could benchmark on a more frequent basis but he believed the council <br />should be deliberative about the changes it made based on the trends it found. He thought the staff <br />proposal addressed that concern. Mr. Pryor advocated for a focus on the "best reality" possible based on <br />the data the council had about trends. <br />Mayor Piercy advocated for an innovative rather than reactive approach and suggested monitoring and <br />analysis would help guide the City toward that goal. If the City had better information it could be better <br />prepared to weather downturns and maintain a more level course. <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Clark about the importance of real time analysis, which would allow the <br />council to evaluate progress more frequently and make needed adjustments. He wanted to use the <br />analysis so the community could carve out its own destiny rather than let destiny happen to it. <br />Ms. Taylor suggested residents had different aspirations in regard to the future. She said the council <br />could influence outcomes through regulations and take actions at the appropriate time to make things <br />happen. <br />Mr. Farr agreed with Ms. Taylor. He wanted to ensure the staff proposal provided a balanced approach <br />that recognized people aspired to different things. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, City Attorney Emily Jerome conceded that it was not likely <br />that all the planning assumptions being used were correct but staff believed the periodic evaluations that <br />would occur would allow for adjustments and reduce the for land reserves. If evaluation indicated more <br />land was needed, it would be relatively easy to bring it into the UGB because of the work that had already <br />been done by staff. <br />Ms. Hansen then led the council through the second phase of the presentation, an update on the Urban <br />Growth Boundary (UGB) Study Areas that included more detailed information on the first priority lands <br />within the study areas and the urban services currently in place. Councilors asked questions clarifying the <br />details of the presentation. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council February 22, 2012 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />