07/08/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- ~ meetings might call for further postponement be~allse of other input from other Sources. She preferred a basic document adopted, 1Daking amendments as changes seemed necessary. With :regardtoattempts at citizen' involvement, Mrs. Niven re"': called the protest .,from a neighbbrhood on a sidewalk installation wherein the project -'. was delayed to give the opportunity for'public meeting In- the neighborhood. Shesaid every member of the' Council and Planning Corrunissionwas present, but only s,even people from the neighborhood attended, so she had no illusions about trying to gain Interest from the general citizenry in community problems. , Councilman Murray thought the priority proposals having to do with citizen participation in the Goals report were excellent vehicles for the kind of involvement desired -- the citizen committee studying growth and 'the social priorities committee. Co 830) Councilman McDonald waS in favor of adopting the present report even though he' fel t there was no question that there were not enough people involved in its preparation. He felt all possible had been done to gain 'citizen participation. . " I '" , (0862) Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the Council -recognize the" goals and assumptions and adopt the policies listed in the 1974' GoalS' document, recognizing as prior>ities those listed as JLt6ms "1", 2 and 3 in_the Priority Nominations submitted; further that the Community Goals Steering Committee look at the policy proposals and testimony presented at this hearing and recommend at some future time two or three more posposals'that should be given high priority. . . Councilwoman Beal asked for clarification of the motion. She wondered about the .' suggested amendments submitted in the letter from Ms. Novick and the items submitted ;. ,- in the minority report. Councilman Williams stated the intent of his motion. He added that in looking through the suggestions submitted by Ms. Novick he had the impression she did not have a copy of the final amended document since most of the suggestions dealt with word changes which had been taken care of in the re-engrossed copy. With regard to the minority report, Mr. Williams said the major thrust seemed to be with the question of transportation policy - that unless masstransi twas made successful it would be necessary,to build more highways. He said the Conference gave serious consideration to the matter of transportation and came to the conclusion that it would not be appropriate to make a formal statement that delay in construction of limited access highways would be tied to the success of alternate transportation systems. He thought if there was more use of buses and bikes there would not be as great a need, for more highways, but only time would tell. Councilman Murray said he believed the issues mentioned in the minority report received the most attention ~\ and discussion, there were not close votes, so there appeared to be, no--obligation to' give them further review. He added that most of the items submitted by Ms. Novick were also considered and discussed in the Conference. Councilman Murray asked whether the motion would also specify that the Goals document would become a supplement to the 1990 General Plan. He said the Conference discussed '.~, that point at some length and came to that conclusion. Mr. Williams said the motion did not deal with that. He had no particular objection but did have some concern with rega~d to the impact of a supplement that was not adopted through the normal Plan amendment process. Manager said it was his understanding the Goals document would be considered as a refinement of the General Plan and would not become a part of the Plan unless adopted by all'three governmental bodies - Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County. The Goals were guidelines and proposals to be used by Eugene in implement- ingthe General Plan. Planning Director agreed and said the General Plan clearly indicated that' only when there were amendments to the total document could changes be made in the Plan. However, the Goals document in no way conflicted with the Plan, he said, it paralleled tlE Plan and in some cases evefiW-e'nY~r4rt":frer. (1021) Vote was taken on the motion to adopt as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Anderson expressed appreciation for participation of Councilmen Williams and Murray on the Goals committee, saying the document presented was excellent and that he hoped many of the goals therein would be a.chieved. It was understood that a resolution ~ould be prepared in line with the motio~ and brought back for adoption of the 1974 Goals'upd~te. , " Councilman Hershner left the meeting. , '.6) , -- B. Rezoning area east of, Tyler Street between 15th and 16th Avenue - Fro~ RG-PD to RG-SR IPlanning Commission Report - June 4, 1974 ! IA. Rezoning Lots 2200, 2400, and 2500 east of Tyler between 15th and 16th _ : i From ~G-PD.to RG-SR (Plan~ing ~ommi~sio~) i B. Amend~ng C~ty Code, deletLng SLgn DLstrLct Boundary Change application fee. ! Fee will be established by Council resolution. (See Item D) , Comm 6/26/74 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to schedule public hearing Pub Hrng . on both items for July 8 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimOUSly. '-, -,-- - ,-,~ .,..- -.- --. ----- ------.:- -- --, --- '_..-----2~ 4 -- "" - .'- -,- - . -'.-.,--.----.. J /8/'J4 -:: .3 v