Laserfiche WebLink
We squabble about the data being incorrect, not allowing a decision. Too much focus on numbers and <br />assembling a menu that totals xyz —this could take forever. <br />The options may not be realistic or come with so much opposition down the road. Our tactics are not rich <br />enough in realistic transportation infrastructure (read capacity) planning as to realize our strategies. This <br />process becomes a mechanism to never expand because we plan unrealistic tactics for our strategies (like <br />nodal development, which did not solve transportation). Unrealistic projections of what can be expected <br />(or possible) utilizing the three (or subset of) strategies with insufficient tactics to accomplish the <br />projections, leaving us with insufficient land use choices to meet projected needs (we failed). Recom- <br />mendations will be too vague to have an impact in guiding growth. We create solutions that are not <br />feasible for economic reasons. <br />We spiral into perpetual reset of the plan, supplanting other planning needs. We spend too much time and <br />money debating philosophies about growth and end up with a plan that is either rejected by the Land <br />Conservation and Development Commission or remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals, and by the <br />time we get a plan adopted, it is outdated and we need to start the process all over. <br />The urban growth boundary (UGB) may end up needing to be expanded further. We expand the UGB to <br />include prime farm and forest lands. <br />We have a closed process with only " "experts" controlling the outcome. The process chokes off the <br />opportunity of completing/reaching solution to the UGB question. <br />We reach conclusions and decisions rather than broad consensus. The City Council modifies the critical <br />components of the plan so that the final version barely resembles the collective thinking of the CRG. The <br />process does not generate broadly supported solutions. CRG members do not support group decisions and <br />positions outside the group structure with their peers and the public. People will be angry and disap- <br />pointed, creating a setback for the entire community, with no shared vision. <br />Every participant and decision -maker reverts to his or her old way of thinking and speaking so the <br />conversation in the end is not at all a new one. Strong voices overpower, and after all the work to bring <br />new perspectives into the process it is the same (squeaky wheels characterizing) the process. Innovation <br />and agreement in the community is not supported, desired results do not occur. <br />Eugene fails to fulfill the quality of life that we all expect of Eugene. We will get, or stay, so entrenched <br />in linear thinking that we will miss the opportunity to really achieve some wonderful direction and <br />livability for Eugene. <br />Best Outcomes <br />We agree on a new UGB by February 2011 (as a council). Having time frames and trying to speed the <br />process along, we progress as a community to implement the plan at lightning speed. We come up with a <br />strategy to address the UGB issue and shaping Eugene's future that is agreeable to almost everyone's <br />original deadline. A plan acceptable to the vast majority of Eugene citizens gets adopted and implemented <br />in a timely manner. <br />MINUTES —Joint Meeting of Eugene City Council/ November 22, 2010 Page 2 <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />