Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said the council had requested a staff-based work program on the <br />Commercial Lands Study. Mr. Farkas said that the Eugene Decisions process <br />had caused some work to be deferred. However, he said that since the council <br />had indicated that it wanted work on Part 4 of the RTF Recommendations to <br />proceed staff had integrated it into studies which were already under way, <br />such as the Commercial lands Study and CATS. <br /> <br />Mr. Boles said he felt that the Eugene Decisions process had led to an error <br />in judgment on the part of staff in this instance. Ms. Bascom said she felt <br />it was important that the Planning Commission take the first step toward the <br />implementation of Part 4. She said she felt that the council had given staff <br />confusing directions in this instance. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald asked if staff work groups, council work teams, or some other <br />option could be used to pursue Part 4 recommendations, or if the task force <br />could be asked to devise methods for pursuing these goals. Ms. Norris said <br />this might best be discussed at the council's June 10 work session. <br /> <br />Mr. Farkas said the Planning Commission would begin to frame the task force <br />assignment at its meeting the following night. He said that information <br />could be presented to the council. Ms. Childs added that the commission felt <br />strongly that the Commercial lands Study was the best place to address Part 4 <br />recommendations. <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholson said the council had clearly directed staff to bring this issue <br />back to the council. He said that many Part 4 recommendations involved tax <br />issues rather than land use issues, which could not appropriately be deliber- <br />ated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Boles said it would have been helpful <br />if staff had let the council know of the Planning Commission's desire to <br />include Part 4 recommendations in the Commercial Lands Study so that the <br />council could approve or disapprove of that plan. <br /> <br />The council agreed to further deliberate the issue at its June 10 work ses- <br />sion. <br /> <br />Mr. MacDonald suggested that at the end of the year, the council should make <br />Goal 5 on transportation a goal for next year. <br /> <br />III. CONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITIONS ON STATE lEGISLATION <br /> <br />Glen Potter, Intergovernmental Relations Division, said that three of the <br />four measures being considered by the council no longer required council <br />action for the purpose of directing the lobbying staff. He said staff would <br />prefer that the council take some action on these bills for Intergovernmental <br />Relations Committee records. <br /> <br />Mr. Nicholson recommended that House Bill 3222 be dropped to Priority 3. Mr. <br />Potter suggested that, in keeping with Mr. Nicholson's recommendation, House <br />Bills 2387 and 2773 should also be dropped to this priority. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />May 28, 1991 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />