Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Kelly said the collaborative model was fabulous, as demonstrated by the East Campus planning model. He encouraged the commission to consider how that type of process could occur more routinely. He said that collaboration only works if all parties were asked to collaborate. Mr. Kelly suggested the Growth Management Study was a fundamental document for the commission to consider as it worked on the alternate path. Mr. Kelly said the work plan did not provide him with a way of judging whether the plan had been fulfilled in the future, and he did not know what it meant to adopt the motion. He preferred to have staff rework the Planning Division's work plan and turn it into a Planning Commission work plan. At this point, he was considering offering the body a substitute motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding possible code amendments related to the siting of medical facilities, Ms. Muir indicated that was to be addressed in the Land Use Code amendments process. Referring to the identified emerging issues, Mr. Pap6 said that he preferred not to put the River Road/Santa Clara transition project on the top of the priority list without more discussion with the neighborhoods groups about other plans that also needed to be updated. Mr. Meisner shared Mr. Kelly's interest in measurable outcomes. Mr. Meisner suggested the possibility that the Coburg Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor might not be the next BRT route given the complications facing that route, and the commission might need to be prepared to have some flexibility in that area. Mr. Meisner asked if the work plan could be accomplished with existing staff. Ms. Muir said the staff resources were forecast where possible; in some instances, it was very difficult to forecast resources without getting into more detailed work program planning. Mr. Meisner hoped the commission and staff would be willing to request additional resources if needed. Ms. Taylor wanted to know what happened to the Land Use Code remand items formerly on the top of the priority list. Ms. Muir indicated the Land Use Code Update remand items came up in April 2004 when the council discussed the Planning Division work program, and the work item was not identified as a high priority at that time. The work task in question was now item 43 on the priority list. Ms. Taylor said if the commission found the council-approved work plan was not working, it should return to the council and let it know. With regard to Mr. Pap6's comments regarding the code amendments associated with medical facilities siting, Mayor Torrey said that depending on where the hospitals located, doctors and clinics would be seeking to relocate as well, and he wanted to know how soon those people would have predictability from the City. Mayor Torrey noted the presence of residents from the River Road area at the meeting, and asked why the council would want to move forward and work on issues in that area before it found out whether there was any willingness on the part of County River Road residents to cooperate. He had never heard the council give any direction to City staff to attempt to annex River Road residents not already in the municipal MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 20, 2004 Page 7 Work Session