01/25/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Metro General Plan, to address issues raised by the West University Neighbors, and to document all changes that are recommended to the council. Consultation with all affected parties is essential. John Drake, 36-1/2 East 14th Street, No.1, Eugene, rejected the recommendation because 13th and 11th streets will become commercial with no opportunity for housing. Mary Kay Crumbaker, 383 East 11th Street, Eugene, chair of the West University Nelghborhood Association, said Ms. Mahler and Mr. Lannom had covered her concerns about mixed-use. She did not want to see commercial use segregated from housing. e Jack Delay, 1708 Alder Street, Eugene, said anyone who underestimates the ability of this area to become a slum and underestimates the role of public policy, does the city a great disservice. Voluntary citizen labor of nearly four years pro- duced the plan. The plan stresses people-oriented amenities and workable residen- tial solutions to rebuild a mix of stable and transient housing. The recommenda- tion of the Planning Commission is not the refinement plan put forward by those who live in the area and understand the neighborhood. For example, the entire mixed-use transitional areas have been replaced by commercial zoning plus a clinic strip. As another example, the expansion of clinics and their use of residential streets for access, a constant problem for the neighborhood, is now granted official legitimacy rather than being controlled. What the plan repre- sents on paper is exactly what the problems have been on the ground. Other interests are being placed ahead of people and their residential interest. The plan guarantees public policy backing it. Mr. Delay suggested two things. First, that if the council does not listen to the residents of the neighborhood, they had better be sure of what they are doing. Second, that the plan be sent back to the Planning Commission and WUN for in-depth review. - Paul Bishow, 1590 Ferry Street, No.1, Eugene, supported the statements of others but added that the draft plan already makes many allowances for change that are sought by the medical community and Chamber of Commerce. The Planning Commission plan is unbalanced, since many goals in the draft plan that were in keeping with the Metro Area General Plan are not viable or possible. It is wrong to change the purpose after the fact. The amended plan should be sent back for further work and study. Adrienne Lannom, 460 East 15th Avenue, Eugene, explained that she had been pro- hibited from participation at the Planning Commission level. She said she is assuming that ownership of property in the plan area is still the standard which determines disqualification from participation in this legislative process and that it is still being applied. Because she had been required to remain silent, the testimony was difficult. She was angry and disappointed with the recommenda- tion. She raised a procedural objection. Despite a publicly established dead- line, the Planning Commission continued to consider additional testimony submitted after the deadline by the hospital, clinic, and other commercial interests (Chamber of Commerce Subcommittee), and to communicate directly with that group exclusive of other affected interests. Ms. Lannom endorsed the materials sent to the council by the WUN executive committee on January 20, 1982, and incor- porated the material into her testimony. She agreed with the action to withdraw support of the draft following the action of the planning commission. The commission offered no reason for its changes, no documentation, and the changes MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 25, 1982 Page 5