Laserfiche WebLink
<br />LCDC states that the City of Eugene is in compliance <br />with only seven. Staff feels, however, that it is in <br />compliance with all 15. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Saul referred to the Planning Department's report of February <br />8, 1977, outlining LCDC's evaluation and staff's response. Mr. <br />Saul explained that LCDC feels the City is in compliance with the <br />following goals: Goal I-Citizen Participation; Goals 3 and 4-Agri- <br />cultural Lands and Forest Lands; Goal 7-Areas Subject to Natural <br />Disasters and Hazards, Goal 8-Recreational Needs; Goal lO-Housing; <br />Goal l3-Energy Conservation. Goals with which LCDC feels Eugene is <br />not in compliance are: Goal 2-Land Use Planning; Goal 5-Natural <br />Resources; Goal 6-Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality; Goal <br />9-Economy of the State; Goal II-Public Facilities; Goal l2-Trans- <br />portation; Goal l4-Urbanization; Goal l5-Willamette River Greenway. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the City of Eugene is being "picked <br />on" by LCDC. Dorothy Anderson of LCDC said that was not the <br />case. Rather, LCDC is saying that, until the urban service area <br />has been re-evaluated by the Metropolitan Plan Update Committee, <br />LCDC is in no position to say whether the urban service area is <br />correct. However, she explained that the problem is not a Eugene <br />problem, but rather a metropolitan problem. She added that Eugene <br />has a real problem with lack of public awareness and understanding <br />of the planning process. She said that there is no one place a <br />citizen can look at a composite of all 63 planning policy documents. <br /> <br />Public <br />Hearing <br /> <br />VII. Appeal of Planning Commission of Minor Partition <br />Application of R. L. Whitson, 2395 Lariat Drive; appellant William <br />D. Kirkpatrick, et. al. Appeal form has been distributed to <br />Council members. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to schedule a <br />public hearing for March 14. <br /> <br />Mr. Whitson wondered if the appeal will be considered under the <br />present panhandle policy or in accordance with the new one currently <br />under consideration. Manager assured him it would be considered <br />under the present policy. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Approve <br /> <br />IX. Legislative Subcommittee Report-February 3, 1977 <br />Minutes have been distributed to Council members. <br /> <br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to accept the <br />report of the Legislative Subcommittee. Motion <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />\ \B <br /> <br />2/14/77 - 42 <br />