CC Minutes - 11/22/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

able to give the "two person weeks" of effort on this in order to outline the various techniques and answer questions. Ms. Taylor said that she would support the motion. She agreed that it was time to begin talking about nodal development. Mr. Lee, in responding to Mr. PapS's concern, said that the issue of impacting private property was timeless in that, whenever new policies were created, at some time a line had to be drawn as to when the policies would be implemented. He added that it was important as a government agency to be clear with the public about policies and about the trade-offs of new policies. He said that ultimately the fine balance between private property rights and community rights had to be found. He thought that it was better to have that discussion now, rather than later. The motion passed 6:1, with Mr. Pap8 voting no. Mayor Torrey asked each councilor to give his/her impressions of TransPlan in two minutes. Ms. Nathanson said that she did not want to see the discussion about TransPlan be about who wins and who loses. She did not think that TransPlan was perfect, saying that she would like to see changes in bike paths, school trips, and rapid transit. She said, however, that her objective was to find a way for all three government agencies Springfield, Eugene, and Lane County, to work together to identify what was acceptable and what needed to be changed in a way that fostered cooperation and did not cause a rift between any two agencies. Mr. Lee said that he did not think that the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) could be separated from TransPlan and that the two had to be considered at the same time. He said that he wanted Mr. Farmer to look at TransPlan to make sure that it was in line with Eugene's Growth Management Policies. He supported the Friends of Eugene proposal with experts such as Mr. Farmer leading some of the discussions. Mr. Rayor said that he would like to see changes in TransPlan, but that it was hard to identify those changes. In response to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs said that the Adopting Officials Review Proposal was predicated on responding to the 150 questions asked by the officials from the four groups; responding to the public testimony including the DLCD letter; and providing options back to the adopting officials. She said that she had asked Mr. Farmer to be more actively involved, particularly in the review of the testimony and the development of those options that would come back to the adopting officials. She noted that the direction would come from the adopting officials rather than from another citizen process. Mr. Rayor noted his concern about identifying the Eugene projects in the TransPlan. Ms. Childs responded that during the Planning Commission review process, the Lane County Planning Commission and Springfield Planning Commission had identified some projects as belonging to Eugene. Mr. Kelly said that it was important for the elected officials to have the chance to consider the public's testimony and be provided with some options. He thought that the Friends of Eugene could still give input. He said that he liked the idea of involving Mr. Farmer more in the process. Mr. Kelly said that there were about four or five big policy areas, such as nodal development, transportation demand management (TDM), maintaining existing streets, transit mode share, and some problem projects that would require three or four work sessions. Ms. Childs said that the MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m.