CC Minutes - 06/22/98 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Nathanson referred to a recent article in The Willamette Weekly regarding neighborhood organizations in Portland. The article indicated that neighborhood groups had initially been created with federal dollars. The funding helped neighborhood groups become involved with redevelopment proposals and large community improvement projects. Ms. Nathanson said that focus of the groups had changed over time; now the dynamic was in stopping or slowing legally allowable projects rather than contributing in a positive manner toward their successs. For that reason, she was concerned about how the alternative path concept or design review might work. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the City establish a pilot project that directed certain types of projects to the alternative path. Mr. Farley said that the commission shared many of Ms. Nathanson's concerns. At this point, he did not anticipate that the Land Use Code Update forwarded by the commission to the council would include a completely developed alternative path, but instead proposals for how to move in that direction. Those proposals could include a proposal for a pilot program. He said that while there was interest in the concept in the community, the concept was not fully formed and the cost and timing of the process was not known. Mr. Farr termed the work load of the commission "awe-inspiring." He asked each commissioner to indicate the councilor who represented their ward. Commissioners complied; Mr. Van Landingham was represented by Mr. Meisner; Mr. Bartel was represented by Ms. Taylor; Ms. Levis was represented by Ms. Taylor; Ms. McMillan was represented by Mr. Laue; and Ms. Wojahn was represented by Mr. Lee. Mr. Farr referred to the upcoming Bethel Scoping Study and said it was very important to the Bethel area and Bethel citizens were excited. He noted what he termed the "lopsided" geographic representation on commission, although he emphasized his support for all the current commissioners. He asked the commissioners bear in mind the lack of representation on the commission from the Bethel area and from west Eugene in general. Mr. Farr said that the City needed to find a new way to "get the word out" about vacancies on City advisory boards and commissions and about opportunities for public input. He said that the Planning Commission could assist the council in that task. Mr. Torrey referred to the proposed Dillard Road development and asked if the City's representatives on the Joint Planning Commissions Committee had discussed the issue with their colleagues on the committee. In response, Ms. McMillan said that such issues had never come before the committee, which was more focused on citizen involvement for the three jurisdictions' joint planning efforts. Ms. Childs concurred. She said that the Dillard Road proposal was located outside the City's urban growth boundary, and suggested the subject of the interface between jurisdictional boundaries could be referred to the Metropolitan Policy Committee for further discussion. She added that the Metropolitan Plan did not provide a review role for cities for development proposals outside their plan boundaries. Mr. Tollenaar noted his own membership on the Joint Planning Commissions Committee and said he was disappointed that the committee never discussed such issues. Instead, it was a surrogate for citizen participation. He regretted the lack of a metrowide forum for planning issues. Mr. Tollenaar asked Ms. Childs to explain proposed changes in the work program for the Land Use Code Update, particularly those placing the update in a larger context. Ms. Childs said that MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 22, 1998 Page 4 6p.m.