CCMinutes - 03/10/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap6 said the council discussed the need for tools to help revitalize downtown. He thought urban renewal was such a tool. He said the council would be able to gauge the appropriateness of the projects. He believed that Ms. Bettman's comments about the taxing situation were too simplistic. At Mr. Pap6's request, Mr. Weinman reviewed the details of the four scenarios before the council. Ms. Bettman thought the tax issue before the council was simple. She said the urban renewal district would pay for the courthouse-related transportation improvements if the federal government did not. She said other funding sources had not been sought. She did not think that was a fiscally responsible approach. The council had already spent money in the district for a purpose for which she thought other funding could be sought, calling it "unconscionable." Mr. Meisner asked if a new parking garage assisted with urban renewal funds could be located on the site of the State motor pool if the property was not in the district. Mr. Klein said the council would have to adopt specific findings to demonstrate such a project benefited the district. The motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. B. WORK SESSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter III-C: Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date Kurt Yeiter of the Planning and Development Department reported that the item involved several periodic review work tasks, which required the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan and Diagram to be amended. He said most of the amendments were what he termed "housekeeping" in nature. Chapter lll- C of the plan, regarding Natural Resources, was more extensively updated to reflect current conditions and science. He said the three jurisdictions coordinated on the draft document and the joint elected officials held a public hearing in February 2004. Springfield and Lane County were scheduled to take action at a later date. Mr. Yeiter said the council's actions would inform the deliberations of the other adopting bodies. He noted that Project Coordinator Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) was present, as well as Eugene Senior Planner Neil Bj6rklund and Eugene Planning Director Susan Muir. Mr. Kelly disagreed with the staff characterization of the amendments as "housekeeping," saying such a characterization marginalized the role of the council. Mr. Kelly said the elected officials requested the objectives to be included in the document but they were not in the materials before the council. Ms. Heinkel called attention to the replacement pages distributed to the joint elected officials on February 10. Mr. Kelly indicated he had not received the pages. He expressed concern that the council did not have the necessary exhibits before it. He said that although it was announced the document would undergo legal review, the council had received no change pages. Mr. Kelly preferred not to take action at this time, and suggested the council act on the amendments suggested by councilors to provide direction to the other adopting jurisdictions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 2 Work Session