CC Minutes - 06/22/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

public expectations. Mr. Meisner believed that most councilors viewed the Land Use Code Update as the major vehicle for implementation of the study. He recommended that that as the commission reviewed the update, it review of the document on a section-by-section basis to ensure consistency with the Growth Management Study policies. Mr. Meisner said that it was necessary to demonstrate to the public how the update supported those policies. Mr. Tollenaar commended the commission for its work over the past year. He said that the commission had established an impressive record of accomplishments. Regarding the Capital Improvement Program, Mr. Tollenaar concurred with Ms. Wojahn about the difficulty of the review and said that the Capital Improvement Program was not well-integrated with other City plans and policies. He endorsed Mr. Barrel's remarks regarding the mayor's decision to refer the Land Use Code Update to the four different citizen organizations. However, he expressed concern that the City was committed to the development of clear and objective design standards and it was unlikely that the four groups would be able to reach agreement on such standards. He expressed concern about the alternative path proposal at this point, as it decentralized real decision-making authority to the neighborhood level and he was unsure that the neighborhood organization structure was prepared to assume that responsibility at this time. Mr. Tollenaar said that citywide and regional interests needed to be protected in land use decision making, and he did not think those interests would be protected by turning the decision process over to the neighborhoods. Mr. Lee arrived at the meeting at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Meisner asked if the City Council's Intergovernmental Relations Committee consulted with the commission prior to each legislative session. Ms. Nathanson said no. Mr. Meisner supported such consultation, saying the commission was a valuable resource. Ms. Nathanson flagged the issue for staff consideration. Ms. Levis said that her first year on the commission had been great and she looked forward to the remainder of her term. She said that she had learned a great deal in the first year. Ms. Levis said that key events over the last year include the public hearings the commission held on the Local Arterial and Collector Street Plan and the Land Use Code Update. She said that as the commission considered several planning efforts in the upcoming year it was important to keep in mind the importance of neighborhoods to residents. Ms. Levis noted the complexity of the Land Use Code Update review and stressed the impact of the update on the community in the future and the need for meaningful public involvement. Ms. Nathanson anticipated the alternative path concept would be a very controversial issue for the community. She cited concerns about the cost and time needed for the process, its equity, and the potential for project delay. She asked how the proposal related to the current revenue and taxation environment of "pay for what you get." Ms. Nathanson questioned whether it was in the community's best interest to see ideas come forth that were what she termed "as good as or better." While she liked the idea of being able to accommodate creative solutions, she believed the process of developing the alternative path concept would be difficult. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern about discussion of establishig design review, acknowledging that there was some interest in the community for very local citizen design review of every new project proposed in Eugene. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 3 6p.m.