CCMinutes - 01/21/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor declared that funding should have been transferred to the work items the City Council had indicated as priorities and that the LUBA remand had been one such priority. Mr. Pap6 felt the list was a step in the direction of getting ;;ahead of the game." He complimented Mr. Taylor for bringing it before the council for strategic prioritization at this point because the ;;plate is too full." He felt such exercises should be conducted routinely as a discipline in all departments of the City government. In response to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Coyle affirmed that the first two items on the work plan were funded and were on track. Mr. Pap6 noted the absence of a work item that would spur further discussion of support services such as offices and clinics for the hospital that was planned to be sited in Eugene. He felt it should be the 57th work item. Mr. Coyle felt this dialogue could be held coincident with the Land Use Code (LUC) amendments. He noted there was one element of the code that prevented one person from coming forward and requesting a change in the land use language. He averred that changing such language would be one step toward facilitating the development of such support services. Mr. Meisner called the list ~valuable," adding that how the council prioritized what it chose to do in community planning was important. He averred community planning had been deprioritized over the years and long-range planning positions had been eliminated. He felt it to be an impossible position for the Planning Division to be in. He opined that the community would ~pay for it for scores of years to come." Mr. Meisner stated that the Lane Transit District (LTD) would be participating in the trip to Washington, DC, for the United Front lobbying and would be seeking $40 million in support for Bus Rapid Transit. He said the City needed to ascertain that LTD was seeking money to support what it required from the City to undertake this effort. Mr. Poling recommended that the item regarding the hospital placement be broader in scope so that citizens could be provided with the best possible health care. Ms. Nathanson expressed concern that the City might remove its capacity for handling current planning issues. She felt the City's need to develop ~infill" was hampered by contentious and anxious comments from the public and the City was unable to adequately address the comments. She said when looking at the third item on the list, which would make minor amendments to the LUC, she had recalled the vote on amendments during the previous year. She stated that at the time she had voted on it, she thought the council would be revisiting the amendments in 2004 to ascertain what worked and what did not work so that any items that were not working could be ~fixed." She felt the code provisions on medical uses other than hospitals were an example of code that was use-based instead of performance-based. She opined that medical care was changing and the City Code had not changed with it. Ms. Nathanson asked if, in the third work item, the council addressed code items that raised questions or created problems the Planning Division would have more time to work on other problems. Mr. Coyle stated that it would. Ms. Nathanson voiced her support for Item 2 in the staff recommendation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 21, 2004 Page 5 Work Session