Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> provide requested staff access to Crandall Arambula in order to facilitate its <br /> study of the potential for transportation and land use strategies in Eugene. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that the study was not relevant to the council's vote on the amendments as it <br />could not be completed in time. He believed it was a minimal request. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Childs indicated that Crandall Arambula, a Portland- <br />based firm had been used before on the Chase Gardens development plan. She said that <br />George Crandall of Crandall Arambula indicated to her that he would be doing the work involved <br />pro bono because he was aware the issue was contentious and thought it would better serve the <br />community if the person doing the study not be financially invested in the issue. She had <br />discussed with him the information he would need, and believed that his information requests <br />would be pretty easy to respond to. Ms. Childs emphasized that the consultant's work was to be a <br />preliminary scoping, not a major study such as LUTRAQ. Mr. Farr questioned whether the City <br />would get any new information. Ms. Childs said that it was another look at the existing <br />information. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 indicated willingness to support the motion if it was amended to be more specific about <br />how much staff time was involved. Ms. Childs indicated the request was for four hours of staff <br />time, and she anticipated it would require four to six hours. Mr. Meisner suggested a friendly <br />amendment that the staff be given a total of eight hours to work with the consultants. Ms. Taylor <br />accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 said he hoped that the motion was not another way to accomplish the goals of defeated <br />Ballot Measure 20-53 and was an examination of new concepts. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the motion. She did not think the council should need such a motion. It <br />was her perception that members of the development community take considerable staff time. <br />She suggested the council consider adopting a policy regarding public access to the staff so that <br />access was consistent. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked the manager for assurance that the motion would not affect the completion <br />of the findings. Mr. Carlson said that he would ensure that did not happen. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that if the point of the exercise was to identify an alternative not involving new <br />road construction, she did not think such a solution would be pragmatic and worthwhile. She <br />reiterated her concerns regarding aesthetics, safety, and congestion, and hoped the consultant's <br />analysis was focused on those concerns. <br /> <br />In relation to the vote on Ballot Measure 20-53, Mr. Kelly recalled that following the council's <br />decision to place the parkway on the ballot, it passed a motion directing staff to return with a work <br />program to develop comprehensive alternatives as well, that work program was not yet <br />forthcoming, and the motion was not superceded by another action. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey indicated support for the motion. He hoped to see a viable report, because he <br />thought the council should be open to suggestions to make things better. Mayor Torrey said he <br />was happy to see that a LUTRAQ approach was not being contemplated as it was his perception <br />that light rail was an important component of LUTRAQ's success in Portland. <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 8:0 <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />