CC Minutes - 04/09/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

accordingly. He specifically noted the addition of a next step related to protection of neighborhoods near downtown, an issue the Ad hoc Committee on Greater Downtown Visioning did not think was within its purview. Staff recommended the council address the issue of a boundary between downtown and those neighborhoods as part of the planning phase of the project and further that it consider how to protect those neighborhoods. Mr. Farmer asked the council to approve six key next steps: 1) redesign Broadway; 2) complete an update to the Downtown Plan; 3) transportation revisions and Central Area Transportation Study (CATS) update; 4) redevelopment concept for EWEB/Chiquita/Broadway; 5) protect adjacent neighborhoods, create an edge to the downtown; and 6) vision implementation tools. Mr. Farmer noted the distribution of motions prepared in response to issues raised by Mr. Rayor and Mr. Kelly. Mr. Farmer recommended that the Planning Commission, augmented by the addition of three City Councilors, oversee the implementation/planning process. That effort would include an extensive public process. Regarding the first step, Ms. Taylor did not want conditions in downtown to deteriorate further. She preferred that the City take small steps, and first do things that were easy and inexpensive. Regarding the cost estimate for the redesign, Ms. Taylor thought the design costs were too high, particularly given that when the council had not reached a decision on whether to pursue the street reopening. She also wanted information about how the street reopening, if approved, would be paid for. Mr. Kelly referred to the list in the agenda item summary that reflected the council's major issues related to the different points in the vision, and suggested the council adopt the list to give clear direction to staff. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the City Manager follow the councilor input in the list on page 5 and 6 of the agenda item summary as revised, in further work on the Greater Downtown Vision Plan and implementation. Mr. Kelly clarified that the phrase "as revised" referred to the four changes he proposed in an e-mail message sent earlier to Mike Sullivan of Planning and Development Department, copies of which were distributed to the council: 1)under item 1, second bullet, add words at end: "of Broadway, assuming an acceptable funding mechanism is available"; 2) under item 3, third bullet: change "needs definition" to "is a priority"; 3) under item 4, second bullet, add words at end: "Financial incentives downtown must be balanced with greater cost recovery elsewhere in the city." Mr. Kelly referred to a motion developed by Mr. Farmer that would supplant the fourth point in his e-mail message. The motion would amend the "Capitalize on Development Opportunities" section of the comments and themes section to include the following language: Explore the feasibility o fall new parking structures being provided by the private sector, with the City providing tools to the private sector to facilitate their development. Ms. Nathanson believed most of the items in the list had substantial council support but some might not have majority support. Mr. Kelly clarified that the items would inform further staff work on the vision. The list would be on record as council policy as opposed to being individual desires of councilors. While he was not comfortable with all the items, he was willing to have them listed. The motion was not intended to make the items into specific expenditures at this point or create new work plans. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the motion could be interpreted to direct staff to begin moving forward with the items on the list. She wanted the record to be clear that was not the intent of the motion.