05/09/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - It was the general oplnlon of the council that the staff recommendation should be adopted but that the amendment process should be shortened if possible, each group making sure not to cause any procedural delays. Some concern was expressed about why the process was not further along. Mr. Schwartz stressed that better communication between the two groups would assist the process. He felt that the DTC had facilitated the process. He agreed that the public process and the Renewal Plan Amendment should be hastened. In response to a question, Councilor Wooten suggested that it might be possible to combine the public hearings for the boards and commissions. Ms. Bennett said the DTC will hold its hearings on the Downtown Plan and then hold its public hearing on the Renewal Plan in August, the input from both to be correlated so that con- struction could begin in December. Ms. Wooten said the integrity of the plan must be maintained. Councilor Ball said he believed that any actions performed during the next three months would not make any difference in the completion of the project. Mr. Schwartz stressed that the project would operate more efficiently if the amendment process was completed earlier. Mr. Gleason stated that Mr. Ball was correct that the project will be delayed until the next construction season if it is retained in the Downtown Plan. He added that Mr. Schwartz.s comments were correct in regard to the amendment process, but he stressed that the key factor in beginning construction was the bid process. Councilor Holmer said that part of the delay was the public process. He suggested that a joint hearing on June 18 would fulfill the public hearing requirement without minimizing the opportunity for public input. He stated that it might be possible to complete the Renewal Plan amendment process by August if the council, DTC, and Planning Commission held a joint meeting. EDD Director John Porter clarified that the July 24 meeting was not a public hearing. He said it would be appropriate to have a joint public hearing with the council and the Planning Commission, stating that the DTC needed time to incorporate any public input from its public hearing. Mr. Holmer said he was only recommending that public testimony be heard at one time. Mayor Keller said he could support that idea, stating that 80 percent of the testimony presented before each group would be approximately the same. Mr. Gleason said that some de nova problems or statutory requirements could exist which a joint meeting would not address. While he said that staff will explore the issue, he reiterated that the project completion date would only be affected by the date when the council approved the final project design and configuration. Mr. Porter added that the council would have to hold a public hearing to hear any revised draft recommended by the DTC based on public input. Mr. Genasci said the DTC must set its priorities after the public hearing before submitting its recommendations to the City Council. He stressed that it was important that the issues not occur simultaneously. Mr. Gleason stated that staff will accept direction from the City Council and the DTC to expedite the process on the project plans and construction as consistent with the law. He said that some other laws relating to changing public works projects were also involved. Mr. Obie added that staff should attempt to have the project completed by May I, 1985. In regard to the joint public hearing, Mr. Gleason said the DTC will go through the hearings process; any change based on public input must go through the Planning Commission and the City Council, at which point a joint hearing could be held. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 9, 1984 Page 9