Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey noted he had received an e-mail message from Ms. Taylor asking that no motion <br />be passed at the meeting later that night because of the hearing scheduled for that evening. He <br />said that the council could take action at a meeting on March 8. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Klein reviewed the time line placing the issue <br />on the ballot, noting action must be taken by March 15. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if Measure 5 allowed the City to furnish the stations from the bond proceeds. <br />Mr. Klein said yes. Mr. Meisner said that had not previously been clear to him. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted the recommendation of the City Manager that the sale of assets be used not to <br />reduce the bond amount, but to upgrade City Hall for nonessential services. He thought that was <br />a more prudent strategy than that of reducing the bond amount. <br /> <br />C. Work Session: TransPlan <br /> <br />Planning Director Jan Childs joined the council to complete a discussion of the staff responses to TransPlan <br />testimony submitted regarding land use/nodal development and questions from the elected officials. She <br />noted the inclusion of a letter from the Friends of Eugene regarding nodal development in the meeting packet. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs anticipated joint work sessions with the other adopting bodies to agree to a revised definition of <br />nodal development. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs reported on the discussions of the other adopting bodies regarding nodal development. Regarding <br />the Springfield discussion, she said that the City Council had expressed concern that definition of nodal <br />development be flexible enough to accommodate the work that city had done through pilot projects in the <br />Mohawk and Jasper-Natron areas. The council was also concerned that however the jurisdictions end up <br />defining the phrase, it not be interpreted as a "one size fits all" approach, and that each city have the <br />opportunity to implement the strategy in an individual manner. The Lane County board had an extensive <br />discussion and the commissioners indicated interest in seeing more work on the definition of nodal <br />development but did not offer specific direction. The board expressed interest that whatever definition was <br />selected recognized the market realities of potential development. Ms. Childs said the Lane Transit District <br />(LTD) board also supported revisiting the definition of nodal development, and looked to Eugene and <br />Springfield to take a lead on that. The LTD board was also interested in the integration between nodal <br />development planning and Bus Rapid Transit. <br />Ms. Childs said that staff would track the issues following each meeting and identify where agreement existed <br />and where more discussion was needed at the joint work session, which would probably not occur until May. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee asked why Springfield was concerned about Land Use Policy 5. Ms. Childs said that Land <br />Conservation and Development Commission had asked that as part of the adoption of TransPlan, the <br />community commit to applying the nodal development Metro Plan designation to the nodal development <br />areas the community agreed to move forward with, and to adopt and apply interim measures to protect those <br />areas from incompatible development while the process of nodal development took place. Springfield was <br />concerned about its ability to do that work within a year, particularly without a commitment of funding from <br />the State to underwrite the costs of that work. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />