06/10/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Jim Farah, Planning, agreed and stated that the School Closure Task Force is addressing a shorter time frame than the Metro Plan adoption process. He realizes the Metropolitan Plan does not specifically address public facilities nor the kinds of agencies that should be available within each area. Mr. Obie suggested that perhaps these concerns should be addressed. Mr. Farah stated that the 4-J board and the task force are concerned about the same things as the council and there should be an effort to move forth in mutual effort. Ms. Wooten stated that she would like for the council to meet with the school board. Ms. Miller stated that staff would have to determine when that would be possible so that as many councilors as possible could attend. Ms. Wooten stated that the school district is planning to present their final recommendations in August. A serious attempt should be made to have this meeting occur prior to that event. Ms. Miller indicated that Mr. Farah could brief the council prior to the meeting. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to approve the context of the draft letter to the School District 4-J Board of Directors. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VIII. LCDC ACKNOWLEDGMENT PROCESS--ORAL REPORT Mr. Gleason introduced Jim Farah, Planning. Mr. Farah stated that a hearing is scheduled for Friday, June 26, in Salem. It is scheduled for the purpose of acknowledging the Metropolitan Plan for Eugene. Staff has received the 1977 city limits acknowledgment. Terrific work is being done by LCDC staff and they are being very cooperative, as they always have been. He has met with staff three times to discuss what their recommendations might be. He feels the recommendations will be for a continuance of 120 days beginning in mid-August after the LCDC review of Goal 5, so that would go into January of 1982. He thinks some of the orders of compliance may be: 1) reducing some of the amount of industrial land or to provide a better reason for the amount of industrial land that is being included; 2) reducing the size of the urban growth boundary; 3) more specific policies or concurrence regarding conversion of urbanizable land to urban; and 4) resolution of the differences between the cities and the County versions. Mr. Gleason expanded on the issue ofa.cknowl eogement :wJt.'i,chhad been addressed by Mr. Farah. He said there are at least two points which he would like to make and then he would request that the council take action on a specific request. First he would like to affirm that the LCDC process is working. He thinks that the efforts by both cities and Lane County to cooperate in developing a plan for logical development of the urban area shows that cooperative government is working in the Eugene-Springfield area. As the Metro Plan is returned to the area for further work, he reads LCDC comments to date as saying that cooperative mode is the only way to proceed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 10, 1981 P ag e 14