Laserfiche WebLink
D. WORK SESSION: Downtown Work Plan <br /> <br />Mr. Taylor introduced the item, which was a follow-up to the council's adoption of the Downtown Plan the <br />previous month. He said that a number of items had been identified for implementation strategies and <br />Associate Planner Nan Laurence would provide an overview of activities that were underway and obtain <br />feedback from the council on how to implement the plan to obtain an exciting and rejuvenated downtown. <br /> <br />Ms. Laurence stated that the first step was to implement the Downtown Plan and staff had reviewed all of <br />the implementation strategies and example projects and identified which were currently being implemented <br />and had funding and staff resources available. She said that the first 12 items in boldface on the list of 116 <br />strategies and projects on Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary were underway with existing funding <br />and staff resources; some of the strategies overlapped and some were discreet projects. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for comments and questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he was pleased that the Downtown Plan was adopted, but the work plan was not at all what <br />he expected, consisting only of a list of items in the plan that indicated those being implemented. He asked <br />that the Planning and Development Department (PDD) provide guidance on how to move beyond the 12 <br />actions that were underway, including a suggested sequence of activities, relationships between projects, <br />potential barriers to implementation, and recommendations on how the council could provide assistance to <br />staff in terms of structure and direction. Ms. Laurence replied that the purpose of the list was to identify for <br />the council those activities staff were currently able to undertake, consistent with the department's priority to <br />implement the Downtown Plan. She said that future reports would include suggestions for other activities as <br />funding and staff resources became available and a request for direction on timing and priorities. Mr. <br />Taylor added that possibly multi-year actions plans could be developed during the council's annual strategic <br />planning retreat. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked for a draft long-range strategic plan for the council to consider and respond to at its January <br />2005 retreat. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mr. Kelly's request. He suggested that the list could be reduced by combining <br />items that appeared to be similar or duplicative and asked how soon items 4 and 5, creation of a single zone <br />to unify the downtown core and issuance of a request for proposals for purchase and development of the <br />City-owned property adjacent to the new courthouse site respectively, would be done. Ms. Laurence <br />responded that she could not provide a timeline of Item 5; however, Item 4 was being actively worked on and <br />had already been the subject of a discussion with the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ questioned why the list contained an item relating to location of University of Oregon offices <br />downtown. Ms. Laurence replied that the item arose from discussions between City staff and the University <br />as a possible way to enhance the connection between downtown and the University. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ expressed concern with the strategy related to seeking funding and developing a plan for a new <br />City Hall and police station, and suggested that the strategy to develop an adaptive use concept for Eugene <br />Water & Electric Board's steam plant be reconsidered. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner concurred with some of the previous comments. He said he did not want an agenda item <br />summary or full scoping for each item and preferred information on which plan an item related to, what <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 10, 2004 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />