07/24/1991 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- e viewed to determine if its congruent with that process. He felt that the review groups were too narrow and said that the plan does not adequately address the relationship between the University and the larger community. Mr. Boles invited the University community to educate the rest of the commu- nity. Ms. Ehrman highlighted Assumption 5 which states that uno major land acquisi- tions will occur outside the presently approved campus boundaries." She also said she was impressed with the level of detail which the plan gives to Level 1 policies. Mr. Nicholson concurred with the need for a broadened public input process. He highlighted that the transportation section ranks autos as the least pre- ferred mode of transportation to the University. Noting that this is a compilation of existing City policies, all of which had to go through the CIC review process, Ms. Bascom said that the plan has re- ceived a great deal of public involvement. However, the City's CIC should not be included in a formal way in this plan review process. Mr. Rutan noted that the tenor of Mr. Boles comments reflects the high level of interest that the council has in being an active and constructive partici- pant in University planning efforts. Mr. Boles said that if the council is serious about ensuring an adequate level of citizen involvement, the process should be stated explicitly within e the plan. The council composition is likely to change in the future; this concern may be lost. He also said that the plan provides an important oppor- tunity for the City to be involved in University planning policies. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Rutan, that the council rec- ommend a change in Assumption 3 of the plan to reflect the reality of changing relationships between the bodies. Mr. MacDonald offered support for the amendment which would give greater stability to the plan. Mr. Nicholson said that while he agrees with the substance of the amendment, he questioned the appropriateness of changing an assumption, noting that the plan document was written based on the assumptions. Roll call vote; the amendment failed 4:5, with councilors Boles, Ehrman, MacDonald, and Robinette voting in favor, and councilors Bascom, Green, Rutan, Nicholson, and Mayor Miller (to break the tie) voting opposed. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Boles, to amend the motion to communicate to the University of Oregon via a letter from Mayor and Council the content and spirit of Councilor Boles comments: expressing the council's interest in a higher level of involvement in University planning activities in the fu- e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 1991 Page 7