CCMinutes - 02/09/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor advocated for the motion, saying the items were formerly a high council priority and now had almost disappeared. She maintained that in the meanwhile, logging was occurring where it should not be. She believed the tree provisions were more important than anything else on the list. The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms. Bettman voting yes. Mr. Kelly determined from Mr. Coyle that the River Road/Santa Clara transition project had dedicated funding, and was included as an emerging issue to acknowledge the division's involvement. However, he believed the work and associated contract would be out of the City Manager's Office. Mr. Kelly questioned why the item was on the priority list rather than the ongoing list. Mr. Coyle said that Ms. Muir had to be involved in the item peripherally. Ms. Muir added the funding was not coming to the Planning Division but it would play a supportive role. Mr. Kelly asked the effect of taking the item off the list. Mr. Coyle said that staff would not be involved in the project. The item acknowledged the interdepartmental coordination on such projects. Mr. Kelly asked why the planning element of the project was not included in the original funding proposal. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to Item 5B (buildable lands supply) and Item 5C (special districts) to the %ther list." In support of his motion, Mr. Kelly pointed out the concept of special districts had received lukewarm support from the council. He further noted a proposal to annex Springfield to the Willakenzie Fire District had recently been voted down by the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission, and suggested the item could be moved and some staff time freed up. Regarding the buildable lands supply issue, Mr. Kelly said that the City was working through efforts such as nodal development to make better use of the existing land supply. He thought there was, at best, anecdotal evidence about the inadequacy of the buildable lands supply. Mr. Kelly preferred to address the LUCU remand before taking on such a new and large work task. Ms. Bettman supported the motion, saying that the buildable lands supply issue had not been discussed as a high priority by the council, and did not rise to that level. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly about the merits of Item 5C. He said discussions about a possible airport district indicated little interest among the council or staff in pursuing that concept. Mr. Meisner added that the item was stated in an overboard manner, in that the council had not discussed restricting the concept to countywide service districts only; in fact, the council frequently had discussed metropolitan service districts. Regarding Item 5B, Mr. Meisner believed the issue needed to be addressed at some point, and suggested that could be done in the context of the council's growth management policies. He did not think that Eugene had done a good job in achieving acceptable redevelopment or infill development. He recommended that staff consult the community survey in regard to the issue. Mr. Papd asked about the City's legal obligations as they related to the supply ofbuildable lands. Ms. Muir noted that normally, the issue would be addressed through periodic review, but it was not one of the City's periodic review tasks. She said the item was included on the emerging issues list as staff anticipated it would come up in association with other high priority items, such as the Goal 5 item; she expected citizens MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 9, 2004 Page 12 Work Session