02/26/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ - - -- - -- --' .- Councilman McDonald felt it WiS a matter of communication between staff and industry' ".- :and interdepartmental. He' favored working at the staff level on the questions raised. !Councilwoman Campbell questioned the need for staff review work. She said letters ireceived from the architects were in general terms and stated no specific charges, land there would appear to be just as many people in Eugene who supported the Plan- I. C . . in~ng O1lll7Uss~on and staff. Manager thought the architects' group expressed legitimate' iconcerns wi th the PUD ordinance which have been recognized for some time by the Plan- :ning Commission. Quite a bit of preliminary work had been done before the communica- It~ons were recei ved. Manager ~aid while. staff does not agree that there is a sol u- t~on to all of the problems wh~ ch would ~mplement what the developers would like to Ihave done, many can be taken care of internally. .._ .___-~.~.~~--_-o......!r-.-- _.'._ __. ___ __. . Councilman Wood arrived at the meeting. Mrs-:."caiiipbelY was concerned about the Chamber's statement that there 'have been :complaints over a two-year period but the Council was not aware of them. She ,added that the architects' group outlined goals they wish to achieve and areas of planning with which they would like to be involved. She wondered whether the com- .: plaints were about the Commission or the staff. Mayor Anderson thought the sug- !gested review of procedural revisions would be a good starting point, discussion :on the philosophy of planning could come later. He felt that in view of the plan- Ining load in recent years it is natural to have varying community reactions, recog- :nizing too that the public is playing an ever-increasing part in the planning process. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to work and report back to the Council as soon Comm authorize staff to continue with ~heir 2/21/73 as possible. Motion carried unan~mouslY'A p;prove . : Manager repeated his understanding of questions raised as reflected by the Chamber's . letter and as reflected by the minutes of the Directors' meeting. He referred to the Survey of Opinion: Lane County Manufacturers conducted by the Chamber and said . it could be interpreted in a different way, depending upon how the figures are read. : He expressed concern with recent publicity regarding the Chamber President's expression; ,of opposition to the 1990 General Plan. As a member of the Board of Directors of the ,Chamber, Manager said his impression gained from attendance at Board meetings was that the Board agreed they would not oppOse the Plan and would support it in principle. ,However, that does not seem to be the position being reflected publicly. i !Don Mason, manager of the Chamber of Commerce, was asked to comment and said he ! would prefer to respond at some type of formal hearing. He commented on having ;heard a number of complaints, mainly about the planning staff, but also on the :planning processes. He said they would be documented before any hearing is scheduled. (He said those complaints, along with the Chamber survey of industry, seemed to justify 'bringing the matter to the attention of the Council, although it was not the feeling 'of the entire Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Mason said the Chamber would be glad to join in the procedure suggested by the Manager; they can document those things with which . the Chamber is concerned and of which staff may not be aware. He added that the :Chamber does support the concept of the 1990 Plan, although there are some areas of concern. . 'On further questioning of Mr. Mason it was determined that the Chamber would be agreeable to meeting with staff so long as it serves the purpose of relaying the 'cri ticisms and comments they have received. It was understood staff would meet \ wi th Mr. Mason to recei ve the Chamber's viewpoint. I '.. . I Mrs. Campbell asked if there would be any public representation in this type of i review in view of the time and effort various people have put into the planning :processes to this point. Manager couldn't visualize how someone representing the 'general public 'without also being considered as representing a special interes't : could be brought into the suggested procedure. After procedural' changes are agreed ;upon it is assumed a public hearing would be in order, and at that time there would lbe. opportunity for public input. Again, he said, this is with regard to the pro-: \' " (cedural and administrative problems, not about the philosophy of planning: Staff [in no way is considering bringing back to the Council recommendations for such lthings as expanding the urban service boundary or other major planning concepts IWhich have been the bases for those kinds of things which hiwe been accomplished. (MaYOr Anderson sai d that after staff report is brought back there will be ample I iopportunity for the public to be heard. He rules that the Chamber staff would be !included in the review of planning processes. Councilman McDonald referred to the Chamber's statement of concerns with "Planning Department's policies and procedures" and wondered whether it referred to the staff of Commission, since the commission is responsible for policy. Mayor explained thai:: !the review would be concerned with technical rather than policy matters and the !staff report to be returned would help to determine whether to make further changes in the planning processes. - 5<?'" " j 5& 2/26/73 - 8