CCMinutes - 04/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

some issues were broadly worded, such as suggestions included in the buildable land supply. It sounded to her as though the council was giving the Metro Partnership's proposal de facto approval without adequate discussion. She cited the special districts issue, noting there was no council action when the discussion on the item had been held and yet it was on the list. She also felt that language that suggested other projects would be approved for prioritization along with economic development and the hospital siting was nebulous. She suggested this would leave to the discretion of the Planning Division what major projects would be prioritized. She commented that prioritization of the periodic review need not occur in this process as it was within the parameters of the regular duties the Planning Division performed and, as such, not unlike the issuing of permits which needed no mention in the list. Mr. Kelly withdrew his motion. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to reword 5 (b) to read, as follows: "Buildable Lands Supply issue, not including industrial or commercial land study." Mr. Meisner questioned the phrasing, stating it would bar staff from having anything to do with commercial or industrial lands. Mr. Kelly echoed Ms. Bettman's concerns regarding the lack of discussion at the council level on such lands. Mr. Coyle responded that adding that phrase to the item provided an additional level of clarification that would acknowledge Mr. Roberts' project if and when it came before the council. Ms. Nathanson remarked that the question of whether there was enough land was key to many other debates and discussions. She said the change did clarify the item but questioned the necessity of such a clarification. She preferred to work with the list as presented. Ms. Bettman said she did not want the prioritization process to circumvent normal work session protocol. She opined that, as stated, this list bypassed council discussion of an important issue. In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Coyle explained that item 5(b) intended to acknowledge the %onsultative capacity of the Planning Division as it relates to buildable lands within the City." He said the division would not take from this direction approval or denial of the work project. Mr. Taylor added that is was not included in the current fiscal budget, nor was it proposed for the next one. Mr. Coyle remarked that the item provided the council the opportunity to resolve the issue of the commercial and industrial land survey. Ms. Bettman supported Mr. Kelly's motion. She commented that it seemed that such consulting work occurred anyway and the council would look at such resource issues when the council made the decision to proceed. She felt the item would not take as many resources as nodal development or other items on the list. She thought it should be a function of Planning Division staff to talk to people such as Jack Roberts when they decided they wanted to change the use of, for example, a school site. Mr. Meisner surmised from the discussion that the inclusion of Mr. Kelly's motion would have no ultimate net effect. Mr. Coyle affirmed this. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 3 Work Session