07/09/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jim Saul, 2780 Elinor Street, stated that he will submit written testimony but wished to highlight certain key issues. Referring to Ms. Niven's brief e history of the Community Goals and Policies Conference process beginning in 1965, he stated that many changes had occurred since the first document was adopted in 1967. He explained that the City had over 750 policies relating to land use planning. He felt that much potential conflict existed between the various policies, stating that the Metro Plan contained 27 policies regarding economic development and the Six-Point Economic Development Plan contained 29, to which the Community Goals and Policies document would add another 19. He said the council should consider whether the community would be well-served by adding more policies, stating that nearly identical policies were contained in both the Metro Plan and the Community Goals and Policies document relating to economic development. He felt the Community Goals and Policies document proposals went beyond the policies already adopted in the Metro Plan, stating that it would open each land use issue to debate. David J. Pedersen, 2261 University, First Vice-President of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, submitted written testimony dated July 9, 1984, to the City Council. The major concern of the Chamber of Commerce was in the relation- ship of the Community Goals document to the Metro Plan and related policies and the possible variance existing between the various documents. Mr. Pedersen stated that the Chamber was recommending that the council receive, rather than adopt, the document and then consider the proposed goals and policies during the next update of the Metro Plan. Responding to Ms. Niven's testimony, he said the process of setting community goals had already been compromised by the various City plans and policies, resulting in an unclear future for the community. Dorothy Anderson, 939 East 21st Avenue, correcting a statement made by e Mr. Rutan, stated that the Planning Commission had specifically recommended that the City Council adopt, and not just receive, the Community Goals and Policies document. Responding to Mr. Miller's testimony regarding the amendments added by the commission, Ms. Anderson agreed that the conference delegates had voted not to consider some of the proposed amendments. She clarified that a majority of the delegates, but not the required two-thirds majority, had voted to continue the conference to consider the amendments. She stated that numerous individuals spoke to the environmental amendments at the Planning Commission public hearing. She felt that it would be a breach of faith if the document were not officially adopted by the council, stating that the delegates had been informed that the council would adopt the final document. She stressed that the Community Goals Committee had attempted to establish a cross-section of the community to be invited to the conference. While she recognized that the document was not perfect, she stressed that it was a citizens' document and was an expression of the community's desires for the City's future. Ms. Decker stated that staff was recommending that the City Council hold open the period for submission of public testimony until September 10, 1984. She said the staff notes contained recommendations for alternative wording to be inserted in the document to address concerns raised in the testimony heard that evening. She said staff will discuss those issues at a work session with the City Council. She added that staff will work with LCDC and the City Attorney's Office to clarify the issues raised concerning the relationship between the document and the Metro Plan. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 9, 1984 Page 5