07/09/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

perform any major revisions to the document, but to review the document and to - discuss any opinions and concerns to be presented to the council. In response to a question by Councilor Obie, Mr. Rutan said the commission felt that the City Council had the responsibility of deciding the degree to which it would make any changes to the document during its review and then how to use the document. He explained that the commission has used past documents to support its decisions with regard to the Metro Plan. He said the majority of the commission felt that the process by which the document was constructed was appropriate. In response to a question by Councilor Holmer, Mr. Rutan said the commission had only considered whether the council should adopt the document and that no alternatives were discussed. The public hearing was opened. Betty Niven, 3940 Hilyard Street, stated that she had been the initiator of the Community Goals process in 1965, thus she was alarmed at the July 9 Register-Guard article concerning the document. She explained that the Community Goals process was based on the Berkeley Master Plan process and that the goal of the process was to develop a community policy which could be followed by the Planning Commission and other boards, thus the importance of the document's adoption by the City Council. Ms. Niven stated that some concerns had also been raised during the adoption process for both the 1967 and 1974 documents but that the council had adopted the document each time. She said it was important to recognize the role of the proposals, noting that the document format had been changed to closely identify the proposals with the policies. She said the proposals or suggested actions allowed citizens to become more involved in the Community Goals process. She stressed that the - City Council has always adopted the document with a resolution outlining specific action by the council with regard to the document. She urged the council to protect the integrity of the Community Goals process, stating that the council might alienate citizens if the document were not adopted. She suggested that the council should address only the key issues of conflict within the document in its review rather than addressing each item. Richard Miller, 2460 Malabar, stated that he had participated in the past three conferences. He urged the council to recognize the goals adopted by the April Community Goals Conference. He said he would also feel alienated if the council recognized the substantive changes to the document made by the Planning Commission. He explained that a majority of the conference delegates had voted not to consider the proposed amendments submitted at the end of the conference, explaining that the delegates had recommended only those items which had been fully discussed. Referring to Suggested Action 2.1 of the Citizen and the Community section, Mr. Miller said it was inappropriate for the Planning Commission to weaken the language addressing affirmative action as adopted by the delegates. He said he was glad that the LCDC had recognized the significance of the document by requiring the 45-day notice. In response to a question by Councilor Obie, Mr. Miller stated that he will submit his testimony in writing. In response to a question by Councilor Wooten, Mr. Miller clarified that he wished the council to adopt the document and recognize the suggested actions as adopted by the conference. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 2