Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e ture; the considerable impact of the University on the commu- <br /> nity and its issues; the need for a periodic plan review, <br /> recognizing that the revision process take into consideration <br /> the effect on Assumption 3; and the need for enhanced public <br /> involvement within the plan, excluding the use of the City's <br /> eIe. Roll call vote; the amendment carried unanimously, 8:0. <br /> Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, that the eIe be <br /> involved in reviewing and commenting on the plan. <br /> Ms. Bascom said she is not comfortable with the amount of review eIe is hav- <br /> ing in City activities and flagged this issue for the council's next process <br /> session. <br /> Mr. Rutan also disagreed with eIC invoTvement. He said that this plan out- <br /> lines a relationship between the City and the University and felt that such <br /> interference would not be received positively by the University. Mr. <br /> Robinette agreed and said that if the eIe is to be involved, it is the City's <br /> responsibility to send it to the CIC. It would be inappropriate to make the <br /> University go through the City's CIC. <br /> Mr. Nicholson acknowledged the changing nature of the relationship which <br /> exists between the University and the City and said that a change in the <br /> citizen involvement process may be the first step. Without CIC involvement <br /> on the front end, the City has no assurance that the input process would be <br /> satisfactory to warrant council approval of the plan. <br /> e Mr. Boles clarified that he is suggesting that the CIC be asked to review and <br /> comment on the plan. The motion would not require the University to comply <br /> with the recommendations. <br /> Roll call vote; the amendment failed 4:5, with councilors <br /> Boles, Ehrman, MacDonald, and Nicholson voting in favor; and <br /> councilors Green, Bascom, Rutan, Robinette, and Mayor Miller <br /> (to break the tie) voting against. <br /> The main motion carried unanimously, 8:0. <br /> V. METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE ACTION: AMENDMENTS TO THE METROPOLITAN <br /> AREA GENERAL PLAN FOR GOOD NEIGHBOR CARE CENTERS, INC. <br /> City Manager Mike Gleason introduced the topic and said that Jan Childs, <br /> Planning and Development Department, was available to answer questions. <br /> Res. No. 4264--A resolution accepting the recommendation of <br /> the Metropolitan Policy Committee to conduct a <br /> public hearing on an ordinance adopting the <br /> Good Neighbor Care Center, lnc.'s proposed plan <br /> diagram amendment as modified by MPC. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 24, 1991 Page 8 <br />