Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/27/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall July 27, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Gary Papé, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the July 27 work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission Mayor Piercy welcomed the members of the Planning Commission who were in attendance: John Lawless, Mitzi Colbath, John Belcher, Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik, Phillip Hudspeth, and Anne Marie Levis. City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced Acting Planning and Development Department Executive Manager Susan Muir. Ms. Muir reported that one of the Planning Commission’s primary accomplishments as part of the City Council prioritization was to focus its work based upon the council’s priorities. Ms. Muir opined that focus enabled staff and the Planning Commission to be more effective and efficient with the council’s help and discipline in setting priorities. She said occasionally items from previous work programs or commitments made by former staff remained incomplete. She hoped that those items would be approved by the City Council for inclusion in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 work program so that the Planning Commission would have one work program. This would help staff to focus and more clearly understand the council priorities. Ms. Muir offered an update to the FY05 Project Summaries included in the draft FY06 Work Program. Referring to page 164, Downtown and Courthouse associated projects, she noted that a City Council work session had been scheduled for September 12, 2005. Referring to the Goal 5 (Natural Resources) projects on page 164 of the agenda packet, Ms. Muir said the Planning Commission made a decision and recommendation to the City Council on July 18, 2005, that would be coming to the council in September 2005. Ms. Muir said Lane County was the lead agency on the Emerging Issues projects. A contract had been awarded to ECO Northwest to complete a study of the buildable land supply for the commercial/industrial study review. The project should take approximately six months to complete. Referring to the City Council Priorities/Planning Division FY06 Work Program on page 164, Ms. Muir said the highest priority item, Mixed-Use Centers (MUC), could be modified to reflect the City Council’s July 20, 2005, motion to amend High Priority Item 1 to include opportunity siting. Ms. Muir suggested that Item MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 1 Work Session 42 on page 169, entitled Conduct comprehensive review of the city’s zoning map in conjunction with asset mapping, be incorporated into Mixed-Use Centers. Ms. Muir introduced John Lawless, Planning Commission President. Mr. Lawless expressed the apprecia- tion of the Planning Commission for the opportunity to talk with the City Council. He invited the council to call upon the commissioners when issues arose related to Planning Commission work program items, and asked for “real-time” feedback that provided a venue for responsive communication. Mr. Lawless commended staff for its efforts in helping the Planning Commission, noting that the work of the commission had moved smoothly and efficiently due to staff assistance. This resulted in the commission being able to address more of the high-priority items on its work program. Mr. Lawless reviewed the commission’s high-priority Accomplishments. He noted the “Chambers Reconsidered” public hearings had been very productive. They demonstrated a high level of cooperation and collaboration with the citizens in the affected neighborhood. He noted that the Eugene Redevelopment Advisory Committee (ERAC) recommendations for downtown had been a very collaborative process that brought people with different perspectives together to collaborate and share their ideas. Both projects occurred in a very progressive format that laid a foundation for future work. Mr. Lawless said discussions on the alternative path would continue, and it would be not only an alternative path, but also a “path of discovery.” The Planning Commission looked forward to citizen, community, business, and City policy input as alternative path recommendations were developed. Mr. Lawless introduced Commissioner Randy Hledik, who offered a briefing on two upcoming high-priority items, Mixed-Use Centers (MUC) and the South Hills Wildlife Habitat Study. He said the commission’s first objective was to complete a review of the Chambers MUC. He reported that there had been a high degree of involvement from the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAHFN), and noted that the informal, final public hearing on that issue was held on July 26, 2005. The main themes that developed from this process included: ? The degree of densification, at least in this neighborhood, and preservation of private open space appeared to be the keys to preserving the neighborhood character. ? New tools that were locality-specific were being considered. CAHFN, staff, and the Planning Commission were looking at a unique approach to regulating heights and setbacks in this process as one example. ? Other neighborhoods were watching this process very carefully. It was premature to know if the lessons that were learned from this process could apply to similar work in other neighborhoods. Mr. Hledik said the commission would also look at the River Road/Rasor Park MUC, one of the original eight priority nodes. The commission’s review would be a timely supplement to the River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project provided the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) transportation growth management (TGM) grant was approved. The project would start in late 2005 and be completed approxi- mately two years later. Mr. Hledik said the commission was also looking at the Walnut Station MUC. Although it was one of the original 38 MUCs, because of other developments in the area, such as the Lane Transit District (LTD) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station at the University of Oregon (UO), the construction of the federal courthouse, a possible new UO basketball arena, and the potential for an I-5 bridge ramp, the area was ripe for commer- MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 2 Work Session cial redevelopment so a coordinated planning effort was warranted at this time. He announced that the Planning Commission would start discussing citizen involvement efforts in August 2005 on this project. Mr. Hledik reported that the Planning Commission was also continuing outreach and collaboration with neighborhoods regarding the MUCs. Staff made 28 presentations that were showing general support among the residents for providing small shopping opportunities within neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, neighbors were not keen on introducing traffic into their neighborhoods for shopping, nor were they particularly keen on walking down established busy streets to these shopping centers. Continuing concern existed about densification in the neighborhoods. The initial findings of the MUC status report should be available in time for the October joint meeting between the City Council and Planning Commission. Mr. Hledik said that based on the City Council’s July 20, 2005, work session, the Planning Commission would also address opportunity siting, which the commission understood to be a strategy to put density where it made the most sense, and not just anywhere or everywhere. Additionally, the Planning Commission planned to review the long-range growth projections for the community to determine where future popula- tions could fit in. Mr. Hledik said the scope of the South Hills Wildlife Habitat Study would encompass 7,000 acres and 2,000 separate lots. The focus of the study was to determine the extent to which the natural resources could legally be protected, rather than protecting the importance of the natural resources involved. Much of the south hills were either already built up or included a good deal of still buildable lands. The Planning Commission would be struggling with the issues involving regulations, incentives, and perhaps even acquisition in appropriate cases. Mr. Hledik said if success in achieving a balanced outcome in this type of a land use matter could be measured by how little controversy a final project generated, the water resource conservation plan and ordinance coming to the City Council in September represented a fair job of balancing. The relatively small number of issues that were raised at the Planning Commission’s final Goal 5 hearing evidenced this. Achieving a similar level of balance or public acceptance for the South Hills Wildlife Habitat evaluation could well require a similar and considerable amount of public outreach as that provided by staff and the Planning Commission for the Goal 5 effort. The public outreach process used for Goal 5 seemed to work well in informing the public about objectives and ramifications of that effort and should be considered in this undertaking as well. The Planning Commission would begin work on the South Hills project in the fall. Mr. Lawless introduced Commissioner Phillip Hudspeth, who addressed “Building Effective Relationships.” He asked if the council was getting what it needed from the Planning Commission, and how commission could provide more and better information to the council. He asked if council “buddies,” email and written communications, and individual meetings were working for the council. Mr. Hudspeth said the Planning Commission was looking forward to the October meeting. He said the commission wanted to be more effective in providing direct input to the City Council, and asked if it would be effective to have a Planning Commissioner attend City Council meetings when the council debated issues on which the Planning Commission had worked. Mr. Hudspeth said identifying recommendations for success included recognizing the differences in the roles of the council and commission to ensure success. He cited the July 26, 2005, Planning Commission public hearing on the Chambers Reconsidered Project as a good example of positive citizen involvement under Mr. Lawless’ leadership. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Hudspeth asked how the Planning Commission could be more effective in forecasting major trends and policy issues with the council. Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commission was wide open to suggestions from the City Council that could become a kit of tools for the commission. Mr. Lawless said the Planning Commission was excited about the October joint meeting, and was hoping for an informal meeting with an open dialogue without the meeting being wrapped in formality. The commis- sion looked forward to addressing opportunity siting, the Region 2050 planning effort, and in-fill issues. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Mr. Kelly expressed his appreciation to the Planning Commission for its hard, important work. He was disappointed that fifteen months after the City Council made it a high priority, the alternative path work was in its infancy. Ms. Muir said the Planning Commission conducted three work sessions on alternative paths. There had been research at the staff level, and outreach to the American Planning Association (APA) and other groups as the City Council had suggested. Ms. Muir had been reaching out around the state to find out if there were other examples in Oregon that she could review and one was found in the City of Wilsonville. The Eugene Planning Commission intended to meet with the Wilsonville Planning Commission, and staff was exploring grants for technical assistance and other resources to fund the project. Referring to items 14 and 42 in the Proposed Planning Division Work Program, Mr. Kelly said they were similar but not identical. Item 42 occurred after the City adopted the Land Use Code Update (LUCU). There were a number of post-LUCU work program items and the council selected the top three, which included Item 42. Mr. Kelly opined that Item 42 was much more than MUCs. It was stepping back citywide and looking at the overall contours of Eugene’s zoning and what was going where. Regarding opportunity siting, Mr. Kelly said opportunities for redevelopment outside of a MUC for selective densification should be based upon population predictions. Ms. Bettman thanked commissioners for their presentation and for working collaboratively with citizens. She also thanked the citizens who took the time to be informed, to be actively engaged, and to work with staff. Ms. Bettman said she was interested in the downtown housing plan policy analysis. Now that the item was finished, she asked what happened next, as it was not formally adopted. On the errata sheet, she noticed the density numbers were corrected. She said the corrections were not consistent with the summary, and asked if it would be changed. Mr. Yeiter said the Downtown Housing Policy Analysis (DHPA) was completed as an informational piece or staff report that was not formally adopted. It was an analysis of what was around the downtown area. There was a bit of opportunity siting that identified underutilized areas and historic sites that might be worthy of preservation. The DHPA will be a good information piece leading into the broader discussion of opportunity siting and could serve as a test case when considering how opportunity siting might be used to support change. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman said asset mapping was a broader tool than the residential density target, which took into account looking at the community and determining where the City had opportunities to achieve a broad range of different strategies such as looking to the future at the Willard School, the Lane County Fair- grounds, and Civic Stadium and determining what was needed and what opportunities existed. If the inventory or mapping were done ahead of time, it would be easier to plan. It will be a component of looking at MUCs. Mr. Papé thanked the Planning Commission for its work, noting that year in and year out, the commission was the hardest working body of volunteers in the City, eclipsed only by the Police Commission during the past six months. He expressed appreciation for the collaborative effort in which the commission had engaged, noting that the elimination of overlay zones brought more citizens to the table to work on their particular areas. He thought the CAHFN had done a model job in working with the Planning Commission and City Council. th Mr. Papé reviewed the upcoming MUC area studies, and asked what was going on with 29 Avenue and Willamette Street area. Principal Planner Kurt Yeiter said that area had not qualified for the TGM grant funding from the State of Oregon because it was not located on a State highway. Currently there was no funding, and all of the staff resources were focused on other projects listed on the priority list. Mr. Papé asked why River Road/Rasor Park MUC was moved up on the priority list when an area that had th intensity and visibility around it, like 29Avenue and Willamette Street, did not get attention. Mr. Yeiter said the word from the State was that River Road was promising. Since River Road was an old territorial th highway, it was a State problem the City had inherited. The State had turned down 29 and Willamette at least twice in the past. Another option for the South Willamette area was transportation issues. If buses were rerouted or the number of through lanes for automobiles was reduced, there would be spillover onto other north-south arterials. A broader, area wide transportation study had been on the wish list for a long time, and staff continued to look for opportunities with the Public Works Department. It remained an expensive item. Mr. Papé said funding sometimes led priorities. There was a lot going on in the River Road/Santa Clara transition area and he was not sure it needed to be second on the MUC list. He regretted that the council had changed the City’s Goal 5 direction. Ms. Muir said staff was in the early phases of trying to understand what kinds of work and resources would be required for Phase 2 of Goal 5. It meant there would be fewer resources for outreach, education and implementation. Mr. Papé also regretted the direction the council was taking on the alternative path project. He concurred with Mr. Kelly’s comments on alternative path and suggested establishing a timeline for the project. Ms. Muir said there would be a strict timeline if a technical assistance grant was received. Ms. Taylor said she was happy with the change in the Goal 5 direction. She asked when Item 42, one of the most important things that was listed would be addressed, noting it had been a higher priority in the past. Ms. Muir said a timeline for those items listed under “Other” had not been developed. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Muir said the civic center was listed as an emerging issues as part of the council priority for a new city hall and civic center. City Manager Taylor added it was tied to the council’s goal around City facilities in the downtown area. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor asked what had happened to the walkability issue. Ms. Muir said that was partly a Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) project. LCOG hired consultants to conduct a walkability survey. Mr. Yeiter said he had not seen any further information from LCOG. He added that was tied into how much change could be done to that street without studying Oak Street and Hilyard Street. Ms. Taylor said she was impressed with how much work the Planning Commission did without much appreciation. It was good that the Planning Commission listened to CAHFN, but the last communication the council had was that the group was still very concerned about some areas in which it thought they were not being heard, such as building height, minimum setbacks, and arable land. Mr. Lawless said he personally felt that last night’s very open dialogue brought those small differences together and in the scheme of things they were not small, but in the number of initial issues only a handful were unresolved. The Planning Commission was very open about asking if there were unresolved issues. His impression was that the meeting ended in a very agreeable fashion with a high level of trust. The draft document would be moving forward with minor amendments. It would be looked at again by CAHFN, other interested parties, and the Planning Commission before the final recommendation went forward to the City Council. He believed that the prior anxieties were dispelled last night. Ms. Taylor said she was glad the neighbors were working on saving their neighborhood, and thought their efforts might transfer to other neighborhoods. Building height was really important in both the Chambers area neighborhood and in south Eugene. She asked if the alternative path would involve flexibility on remodeling permits. Mr. Poling extended his thanks to the Planning Commission for the work it does, not only this past year, but also all the other years. He asked for clarification on the timeline for the Parks and Open Space (POS) Master Plan. He asked what issues other that the routine updates to the 1989 plan could be expected. In response, Ms. Muir said it was scheduled for the Planning Commission in October. She said this was a shared item with Public Works playing the lead role. Mr. Yeiter said Planning staff had been reviewing the draft documents with Public Works staff, and it would provide some guidance for future acquisitions. Public Works Director Kurt Corey reported the plan would provide a comprehensive view of everything involved in Parks, Recreation and Open Space. A project list, similar to the Facilities Plan work, would be developed. Ultimately, it would be a guiding document that would drive policy decisions around that type of development and future funding including bond issues, etc., for the next 20 years. Mr. Poling asked if the plan would look at lands in the urban transition area as well as what was currently available within the city limits, thus including all of the area within the urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Corey replied it would be written from a planning perspective. Mr. Poling asked if notification would be sent to the affected property owners who live outside the city but within that urban transition area. Mr. Corey said as a land use issue, one of the next steps in the path was filing the plan with the State Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD). The proposed schedule on the Planning Commission agenda contemplated some reasonable period of time subsequent to that filing to have a full public input process. Ms. Muir noted that the Planning Commission agendas were posted on the City’s Web page and interested parties can check there starting in October if they are interested. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 6 Work Session In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Ms. Muir explained how the opportunity siting language would be added into the high-priority items. Mayor Piercy said the MUC process provided opportunities for success while presenting major challenges at the same time. Mayor Piercy said she heard in the community that there were some difficulties getting Goal 5 materials in a timely manner for review. She expressed her appreciation for the “buddy” system and was interested in continuing the dialogue. She said it was important to get out in front of the discussions so the Planning Commission did not do a lot of work in a direction that the council did not want to go. Mayor Piercy said it was important for the council and commission to stay tuned with each other. Although the council may at times disagree with the Planning Commission, it was important for the commission to understand that the council’s often had to address conflicting needs. Mayor Piercy called on the council for a second round of questions and comments. Mr. Kelly said there was inevitable tension in some of the discussions because a neighborhood’s priority understandably is the neighborhood, whereas the challenge that the Planning Commission and the council faced was looking at everything in a citywide context. Being listened to was not the same as being agreed with, and that can create tension if the Planning Commission takes a different direction than what is recommended by citizens or the council chooses a direction that varied from the Planning Commission recommendation. It did not mean the council ignored the commission; it simply meant that the council sifted through all the information given to it, weighed it all against other factors, and made a decision. Mr. Kelly said what CAHFN had been saying was that an opportunity siting discussion was needed as well as a need to be realistic. If what happened in the end did not erode livability or the property values of those who invested in the neighborhood, then good things were happening. Ms. Muir said the traditional land use process would be used for the update of the 1989 plan, meaning there would be a noticed Planning Commission work session followed by a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to the City Council. The council would also hold a work session and a public hearing. Referring to the Historic Review Board (HRB) workplan, Ms. Taylor asked if the Santa Clara school was a historic site. Ms. Taylor asked if someone was going to study the building, as she understood the fire did not touch the historic part. She hoped the structure would be saved. Mr. Yeiter understood that the school had not been designated and it had not been studied further since the fire. He said it was not currently part of the Planning Division’s work program. Furthermore, the River Road study did not go north of Beltline, thus would not include the school site. Ms. Ortiz reported that she met with George Russell, Superintendent of Eugene School District 4-J, regarding the Santa Clara school. The school district planned to sell the building. The River Road/Santa Clara Park and Recreation District was hoping to purchase that site. Ms. Ortiz understood that the fire affected the main structure. It would cost a significant amount of money to repair the part of the building that shared a common wall with the historic section. The Eugene School District 4-J School Board would decide whether it wanted to put money into the building. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Regarding Planning Commissioners attending City Council meetings, Ms. Taylor thought it would be valuable to have commissioners available when the council addressed planning related issues. Ms. Levis said she too struggled with the lengthy timeline for alternative path issues. She commended staff for looking at the alternative path issues in a new way. She expressed frustration because many of the neighborhood plans were outdated and there was no funding available to update the plans. She said that outdated neighborhood plans are a critical issue for each neighborhood, which was not apparent to the neighbors until their neighborhood had an issue. Mr. Poling, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to approve the FY06 Planning Commission Work Program contained in the attached FY05 Annual Report including the Historic Re- view Board FY06 Work Program. Referring to the DHPA, Mr. Kelly said parts of it were very weak, particularly in its recommendations and in accomplishing its desired stated purpose of looking at central city residential stock and quality. He was struck that there was outreach to four neighborhoods and each of the four neighborhoods spoke strongly in support of design standards or design review. There was potential for that to tie into opportunity siting and a recent initiative about “density done right.” Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the Planning Commission outreach on the possible downtown zone would be restricted to soliciting feedback from the ERAC. Although input from that group was valuable and represented a diverse group of citizens, they had a specific focus that may be very different from both the majority of property owners within the downtown zone who would be affected and the broader public. Mr. Kelly noted that the timeline for the minor land use code amendments, Phase 2, had slipped. Ms. Muir confirmed that a broad public outreach process would solicit feedback on priorities for those amendments. Ms. Bettman said she would support the motion with the understanding that the MUCs were evolving as well as the downtown plan. She hoped that creation of an urban renewal district specifically for the South Willamette Street Corridor would be considered so money would be available to reinvest in order to provide the infrastructure and do the kinds of site specific planning that are needed. Ms. Bettman recalled that when alternative path was first discussed, the key component was working with the neighbors and the neighborhoods, and she did not want that to get lost. Ms. Bettman said she submitted a report 15 years ago to Planning staff that provided percentages of the need for non-local commercial versus residential zoning in planning for long-term population growth. Mr. Papé said he thought there were mixed-use areas with higher priorities than the River Road/Santa Clara area, and asked to have those priorities reviewed. He was disappointed that the City did not “get out in front th of” the 29 Avenue and Willamette Street redevelopment and Willard School to take advantage of opportunities. Mr. Papé said although the siting of hospitals and other medical use areas was not part of the Planning Commission work program, it was important to grasp ways with which to get out ahead of the issue. Mr. Papé noted that the City of Springfield and Lane County had been publicly reevaluating their participa- tion in the shared Metro Plan. Ms. Muir said there had been discussions regarding the proposed public MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 8 Work Session safety district, and the issue had come up at the staff level as well. She understood that Lane County was looking at the pros and cons of the Metro Plan. Mayor Piercy acknowledged that Mayor Leiken did an opinion piece where he mentioned the issue. Ms. Muir clarified the motion. Staff understood that if the motion passed, it would include the change to adopt the motion on opportunity siting and the MUC high priorities. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion to move Item 43, which is the remand and used to be at the top of the list, to the number 5 position, and move every- thing else down. Mr. Kelly said it had been a long-standing concern of his that what council said was a high priority often “drifted away.” Having said that, there was currently so much on the high-priority list that he could not support the motion, in spite of the fact that there had not been any progress on those important issues. Mr. Papé concurred with Mr. Kelly. Ms. Bettman said she consistently heard over the years from constituents that this was an important issue. Issues important to the community, such as the protection of heritage trees and the loss of that canopy, were more important to the community than most of the LUCU issues that have been processed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Kelly asked City Manager Taylor to have Public Works and Planning return with a proposal to address only the tree ordinance issue to take advantage of the good work done on the tree ordinance in 2000. City Manager Dennis Taylor said it would be relatively easy to put that together and bring the issue back to the City Council in a narrower sense than is envisioned in the PDD draft work program. Ms. Taylor concurred with Ms. Bettman that there was nothing more important to the community than protecting its trees and every week that did not happen, Eugene lost more trees. Mr. Papé said he did not want to imply to the public that Eugene did not have tree protections. He believed the City’s current historic tree preservation was not regulated properly. City Attorney Glenn Klein said the regulations that were in place now on trees were the same ones that were in place prior to the remand. Cutting trees required permits under certain circumstances depending upon whether the property was developed or not developed. They also required permits depending on the number of trees to be cut. Permit applications go to the Urban Forester, so there were protections that were currently in place. The protections that would have been in place had the tree ordinance not been remanded were improvements over what was in place today. Mr. Papé said the Eugene Tree Foundation was working on historic tree designations and asked if there were any regulations around historic trees. Mr. Klein said he was not aware of any, but there were provisions in the charter that related to some very old trees within certain rights-of-way. Mr. Papé said many historic trees were in the public domain, and he appreciated that they were not disturbed. Additionally, there was public information provided by the Urban Forester prior to any of those trees being cut down. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Mayor Piercy called for the vote on the amendment to the motion. The amendment to the motion failed, 2:5, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in favor of the motion. Ms. Colbath offered an overview of several issues the Planning Commission was addressing. She reported that interaction with neighbors and neighborhoods had improved dramatically during the past few years, starting with the East Campus Plan. She said that intense staff interaction to work out the difficulties as well as last night’s public hearing provided a venue for an open dialogue with enthusiastic and dedicated residents in the neighborhoods. The Planning Commission had consistently seen that the neighborhood plans were outdated and were creating difficulties. It took a lot of effort from staff to do this but it had been a worthwhile venture. Ms. Colbath said the Planning Commission was looking forward to continued feedback from the council as it worked through Ballot Measure 37 issues. Mr. Belcher thanked Mayor Piercy and the City Council for the opportunity to serve, noting it was a challenge at times. He saw two issues, Ballot Measure 37 and the Growth Management Study, which would continue to be challenging for the community: Mr. Kelly said there was currently no definition of what “Other” meant in the Planning Commission‘s work program. He asked that such a definition be included in next year’s presentation to the City Council. He again thanked the commissioners for their good work and a good discussion. Mr. Pryor expressed his enormous appreciation for the Planning Commission. He looked forward to working with the Planning Commission on some of the very thorny, difficult projects. The commission did the incredible amount of homework and study that councilors did not have the opportunity to do. He was very reliant on the commission’s study and perspective on many of these issues that had been very helpful. He looked forward to working together with the Planning Commission. Ms. Levis expressed appreciation for the in-depth way the council looked all these issues. Unfortunately, time would not allow an opportunity to talk a little bit more about relationships. The buddy system was helpful. She appreciated Mr. Kelly’s comment that just because the council did not agree with the commission or did not go the way the commissions recommend did not mean the council had not listened to the commission. There had been times when the commission felt it had not been heard. Creating these better relationships was a way to help the commission understand issues from the council’s perspective. City Manager Taylor thanked the Planning Commission and the City Council for setting priorities and keeping them, noting that if priorities are set and work occurs on the highest priorities first, more is accomplished. That was the City’s experience since discipline had been imposed last year. He saw not only the relationship between the City Council and Planning Commission growing, but also the relationship between the Planning Commission, City Council, and the community. He applauded the commission and council for their focus and discipline. Mr. Belcher thanked Ms. Muir for the hard work she had done, noting she had been very effective since coming to the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Mayor Piercy said from alternate paths and opportunity siting, to talking about tension, neighborhood plans, mixed-use, and Ballot Measure 37, to working together more effectively and more often, she hoped all those things would continue. Mayor Piercy called for a vote on the main motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mayor Piercy announced that federal money for a number of things the City had worked for as a community was starting to come in. The meeting adjourned at 1:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 27, 2005 Page 11 Work Session