Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

The amended motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct staff to continue work on development opportunities and implementation of the Downtown Plan. Ms. Taylor said the plan was supposed to be conceptual but she believed it was used as a “weapon.” She said the plan worried her; there were many things in it she did not think were good ideas and she would vote against the motion. th Mr. Papé concurred with earlier remarks about the need for an overpass at 8 Avenue and Mill Street and urged that the option remain open with the design of the parking garage. He encouraged the council to continue to have regular discussions on downtown. He hoped that locations downtown could help with opportunity siting and asked if the Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) discussed a north side parking structure. Mr. Sullivan replied that the north end scoping project addressed the issue of parking in association with the train station and he would research whether north end parking was considered in CATS. Mr. Kelly commented that there were some implementation strategies and example projects in the plan with which he did not agree but did not think the council’s action in 2004 or currently bound it to those strategies as anything significant had to come to the council for discretionary action. He used the parking garage as an example and pointed out that it was consistent with one of the implementation strategies but any member of the council was free to oppose it. He supported the motion on the floor. Mayor Piercy noted that sustainability was not specifically mentioned in the plan but hoped that it would be a factor in consideration of downtown projects. Ms. Taylor said that fixed rail transit and a walkability assessment were implementation strategies that should be worked on. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the motion because the community perceived it as a plan and, in order to have a plan and move in a responsible way towards objectives, there had to be specifics, benchmarks, a blueprint, and financial constraints. She said when a project was presented to the council, the community and the media expected it to be supported because the plan was adopted unanimously and any project was consistent with the so-called plan. She said downtown deserved a real plan with benchmarks. She mentioned that a main theme of the plan th was connecting downtown to the river and putting 6 Avenue along the river was counter to that objective. The motion passed, 6:1; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy asked if there could be a discussion of incorporating benchmarks in the plan. City Manager Taylor replied that in response to the council’s motions today, staff would illustrate that the plan was visionary but also dynamic, and elements could be added as they were refined and adopted by the council. He said the specific approach recommended by Ms. Bettman would be consistent with direction from the council to give priority to development of a two-year action plan with specific steps and a decision package as part of a budget building process for the fiscal year (FY) 2007 or FY08 budget. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 19 Page 6