09/10/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" Referring to the department memorandum, Ms. Decker reviewed the issues which e were left unresolved after the August 13 session and the staff recommendations for those issues. Addressing material from Dr. Rhoda Love distributed to the council, she said Dr. Love had raised some concerns regarding Suggested Action 2.0 on page 13 of the June draft. Ms. Decker said the Suggested Action was revised by staff to delete lIuncommonll from the statement in an attempt to respond to concerns raised at the previous public hearing and to make the suggested action consistent with Metro Plan language. She s ta ted tha t the letter from Dr. Love addressed additional concerns regarding the language recommended in the Revisions and Errata and that staff would comment on those issues after pUblic testimony has been received. The public hearing was opened. Rhoda Love, 393 Ful Vue Drive, stated that she was pleased with the cDopera- tion shown by staff and councilors. She said she liked the revised wording of Suggested Action 2.0 on page 13, but she questioned the use of Illegally adopted State-wi de 1 i stll si nce no such 1 i st exi sted. She said the Natural Heritage Data Base had published its first edition in 1983 and it was being adopted by various Federal and State agencies. She suggested that the Suggested Action be revised to read lias recognized on the Oregon Natural. , Heri tage Da ta Base Li st. II Elizabeth Brown, 665 West 5th Avenue #4, stated that she had changed her mind Slnce last glvlng testimony on the Community Goals and Policies document. While she had previously agreed with Councilor Holmer that the council should not adopt a document containing controversial issues, she now felt that the e document was fairly representative of community opinion on numerous issues. She felt that the few contradictions contained in the document would keep people humble once the document was formally adopted. She recommended that the original wording of Suggested Action 2.4 on page 10 of the June draft be retained, stating that she had understood that the original wording had been deleted as being too vague. She said the Nuclear Free America organization had suggested more specific language to resolve the problem rather than deleting the statement entirely. She suggested that the suggested action be amended to include IIknowingly and willingly manufacture nuclear weapons or components. II She said she was concerned because she was not sure who the City Council was afraid of offending in retaining the language. While she recognized that the current economic development efforts of the City were not contro- versial, she felt that weapons contractors or similar high-technology firms would raise public concern. She acknowledged that a community consensus banning the production of nuclear weapons or components existed, but she stated that a consensus supporting such production probably did not exist. Referring to the current historic trees ballot measure, Ms. Brown felt that it was an attempt by people to slow down the economic development measures so that issues could be clarified. Marilyn Odell, 750 West Broadway, stated that the language for Suggested Action 2.1 on page 2 as proposed by the Goals Conference should be retained rather than the change recommended by the Planning Commission. She fe 1t tha t e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 10, 1984 Page 2