My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 09/11/06 Meeting
>
Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:07:41 PM
Creation date
9/7/2006 11:23:50 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/11/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Ms. Teninty solicited additional comments on the three criteria she identified earlier. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Taylor’s suggestion to eliminate the criterion to consider the impact of displacing <br />prime private development opportunities. He said while it was a factor to consider, sites should not be <br />ranked on that basis, particularly from a long-range perspective. He was in favor of retaining the criterion <br />to support downtown planning efforts as it did not require strict adherence to each Downtown Plan policy. <br />He said the issue of police consolidation was not on the table as options were still being considered. Ms. <br />Teninty said the intent was to discuss the relevance of police consolidation to site selection so the design <br />team would understand councilors’ points of view, but not to reach a decision on the matter. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked if patrol vehicle access other than at shift change was vital to Police Department operations. <br />Rick Siel, Eugene Police Department, replied that access was less of an issue than originally stated; <br />however, crossing railroad tracks was a problem. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz questioned the need to integrate the police patrol function into a new City Hall complex as it could <br />be done less expensively offsite. She did not think it was necessary to wait for a bond measure to address <br />police needs as the City had other properties available that could be used to provide a much better facility <br />for police personnel. She said that police functions did not necessarily need to be located downtown but <br />acknowledged that the police chief preferred to have some of the administrative functions remain in City <br />Hall. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested a broader criterion that would consider both the development potential of the <br />property as well as the community value aspect. She agreed with Ms. Teninty’s suggested wording: <br />Consider impact of private and community development opportunities. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported Mayor Piercy’s suggestion and the revised wording. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she could support a criterion that considered whether a City Hall was the best use of a site. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé said he also supported Mayor Piercy’s suggestion. He noted that the City currently lacked the <br />capacity to analyze private development and suggested inclusion of private developers on a committee to <br />assist the City with the analysis if that became a consideration. He said that including examples of criteria <br />application with the list of evaluation criteria was confusing. Ms. Teninty said the examples were provided <br />to facilitate the council’s discussion and would not be included in materials for the public workshop. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Ms. Solomon’s comments regarding support for the Downtown Plan. He was <br />pleased that revised language was suggested for the criterion related to impact on private development <br />opportunities, as that needed to be considered in the site selection process. He had an opinion regarding <br />consolidation of police patrol but preferred to hear feedback from the public on that issue. Ms. Teninty said <br />that consolidation had been discussed in the first public forum and could be discussed again with respect to <br />site selection. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling remarked that consolidation might also depend on the site selected. <br /> <br />Mr. Hacker reminded the council that massing diagrams for both full block and half block sites indicated <br />that either could accommodate Option B; however, selecting Option C would require two sites: one for City <br />Hall and one within two blocks distance for police. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 9, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Shop <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.