Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the fast staff turnaround in regard to incorporating the hearing <br />comments, adding that the principles had been improved by the changes. He felt there was value in having <br />housing called out separately, particularly because it could add to the life of a street in a different way than <br />commercial enterprise. He liked the word ';additional housing," as it delineated it from existing housing. He <br />thought there was merit in having housing in the same building with civic functions. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that the policy principle regarding housing did not mandate housing be developed but <br />rather suggested housing opportunities should be explored. As such, she was amenable to allowing the <br />policy to remain as written. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked staff to define ;;urban campus." Mr. Carlson responded that it recognized that there <br />were multiple buildings and not that the civic functions of the City and County were consolidated in a single <br />building. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman liked the idea of having the different jurisdictions grouped within the same area, but did not <br />approve of having them built contiguously. She wanted the legislative intent of the language to be clear. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson did not want to preclude evening and weekend pedestrian activity by covering full blocks <br />with government buildings. She commented that the part of town covered by the City Hall and County <br />buildings felt like a barrier to people. She asked to what extent the City intended to consolidate its <br />functions. <br /> <br />In response to the council's comments, Mr. Taylor said that the long-term vision sought to optimize <br />consolidation. He said the proposal had a range of options that included all of the City functions that were <br />currently being leased out. He noted that the only options not directly addressed were the ideas of bringing <br />the forensics building and the property control building within the community safety structure and, <br />additionally, the notion of the inclusion of non-profit victim service providers. Mr. Carlson added that the <br />only reason the City rented space was that it did not own enough property in the downtown area. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson pointed out that the downtown vision and plan emphasized the inclusion of housing within <br />the mixed uses. She did not think it necessary to have a separate item regarding housing in a document that <br />addressed the development of a Civic Center. She noted there was language regarding the fostering of mixed <br />uses and suggested that the emphasis on housing be added to this language. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap6 also thanked staff for the quick turnaround. He wondered if the designation of 8th Avenue as a <br />Great Civic Street, as per policy principle (2), should be extended from Charnelton Street. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6 offered a friendly amendment to change policy principle (3) so <br /> that it did not refer to the courthouse area as ';Cannery Square." The <br /> maker and second agreed to the amendment. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6 offered a friendly amendment to change policy principle (6) so <br /> that the second sentence read: <br /> ';Facilities, including parMng, for each mode should support not only <br /> the civic center but also surrounding mixed uses." <br /> The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2004 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />