CC Minutes - 07/18/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman thanked Mr. Croteau for his work in amending the plan to reflect council comments and public testimony. Mr. Meisner observed that the language in question in Policy A-8 was mandatory, and he was concerned it would require the City to do more than it proposed to do. City Attorney Jerome Lidz pointed out that the policy stated that the City shall examine ways to provide such housing, not that it will do so. He acknowledged that it created a responsibility for the City. Mr. Croteau clarified that staff was not proposing any changes to Policy A-8; its inclusion was merely to show that there were other policies in the Metropolitan Plan supporting proposed Policy G-35. Mr. Meisner acknowledged that, and said it was Mr. Croteau's answer that confused him. Mr. Kelly also thanked the staff for its responsiveness to testimony and the elected officials' comments. He referred to the explanation of why transit was not included in the minimum level of key services, and termed it an unfortunate reality. He said that in some European jurisdictions a new project was not approved for construction until transit was guaranteed to be in place. He wanted to move Eugene in that direction in the long-term. Mr. Kelly asked if there was anything the City could do to give transit some consideration in the urbanization and annexation process. Mr. Croteau said that the City referred annexation proposals to all public service providers, and the planning process for transit and other services was already in place. The establishment of the urban growth boundary informed all providers that they will be responsible to serve properties that are urbanized. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the existing process, but pointed out that Lane Transit District, the provider of transit, did not adopt the Metro Plan and its refinements, so no local jurisdiction was in a legal position to tell the district it must provide service to a certain area. Mr. Croteau said that the plan bound the agency even though it did not adopt it formally. He noted the district's participation in TransPlan, a refinement to the Metro Plan. Mr. Kelly reiterated his interest in a long-term approach that got transit to occur in "lockstep" with new development. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 about the City's involvement in telecommunications, Mr. Croteau said that there was a coordination effort taking place among service providers. He had not been involved in the details but understood the effort would be more coordinated in the future than the past. Mr. Pap8 asked for comment from Ms. Nathanson. Ms. Nathanson responded that because the providers were private businesses, the City was unable to secure specific plans about what networks were planned or what customers would be served. Franchise agreements delineate generally how services would be provided, but the City had no access to private business plans. She said that other communities had the same experience. Mr. Pap8 referred to the section in the staff memorandum on health care and asked if Policy G-5 was a new policy. Mr. Croteau said that it was an existing policy. Mr. Pap8 determined from Mr. Croteau that the City participated in an ongoing planning process with the University of Oregon through its participation in a campus planning committee. The University also has a campus plan that the City reviewed when changes were proposed. Mr. Pap8 asked if PeaceHealth did the same. Mr. Croteau said no. The hospital went through normal planning and review processes, just like other private property owners. Mr. Pap8 asked why the City only recently became involved with PeaceHealth facility planning if the policy was already in place. Mr. Croteau said that the City had been involved with PeaceHealth's planning efforts in the past. Some of those efforts were successful and some were more controversial. PeaceHealth was involved in various MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 18, 2001 Page 2 Work Session