CCMinutes - 04/12/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Policy 2 on page 18 of the plan, which encouraged the location of significant government buildings along 8th Avenue. She said the text in question was not in the ordinance. Ms. Laurence believed there were reasons to reinforce the idea of a civic street. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the plan by revising it to read ~...along East 8th Avenue and other locations..." Mr. Kelly was somewhat comfortable broadening the language given the recent design charette, which placed a preference on the 8th Avenue location but did not preclude other locations. He indicated he would await the comments of other councilors before deciding his position. Ms. Bettman said the text was aspirational. Though there were specific implementation projects she did not agree with, there were others she would like to see strengthened. However, since the council was only adopting the policies and had the final word on all projects, she thought that calling out such issues was ~word-smithing." For example, she would like to reinforce the Parks Blocks as a location for the Saturday Market and Farmers Market, but declined to do so because of the aspirational nature of the plan. Ms. Bettman characterized the policies as relatively broad and generally positive, and said she would not support the amendment. Mr. Taylor indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Bettman. Ms. Taylor agreed. She said there were things in the plan she would like to change, but there were many good things in the plan as well, such as pedestrian amenities. Mr. Pap~ agreed the council should not wordsmith aspirational language, and asked the City Manager how he would interpret the project text and Implementation Strategy 2(D), %eek funding and develop a plan for a new City Hall and police station along East 8th Avenue." Mr. Taylor distinguished between the policy and implementation strategy and said he would interpret the text as general guidance. Ms. Laurence concurred. Mr. Taylor did not interpret the text as restricting his ability to offer the council another site in downtown. He thought it gave him great latitude. The amendment to the motion failed, 7:1; Mr. Pap~ voting yes. Ms. Bettman referred to Policy 3(B) on page 30 of the plan, which indicated the Eugene Water & Electric Board's (EWEB) master plan would be processed as a Type II application, which was a Planning Director decision, as opposed to a Type III decision, which was a quasi-judicial decision. She asked staff how that affected the greenway permit process. She wanted to know if a master plan application would trigger a modified permit (Type II application) or a new application (Type III application). Mr. Yeiter said that depended on the interpretation of whether the permit was being modified. Mr. Kelly confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that whether or the text in question was in the plan, the greenway permit rules were applied separately. He questioned whether a decision about the master plan would influence the Planning Director in terms of how he or she interpreted the nature of the greenway permit. Mr. Kelly was convinced a healthy vibrant downtown was a prerequisite for a healthy and vibrant Eugene. He said that the plan contained some things he did not like, but it contained other elements he was pleased with. He supported the plan. He was also pleased to hear the Downtown Plan Action Plan would come MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 2004 Page 6 Work Session