Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Framework does not meet expectations for information needed to make clear policy choices. Bad on-the- ground assumption data (ECLA) leads to unrealizable strategies. The framework does not have enough information/choices to make specific decisions that we can agree on to move forward in a timely manner. We squabble about the data being incorrect, not allowing a decision. Too much focus on numbers and assembling a menu that totals xyz—this could take forever. The options may not be realistic or come with so much opposition down the road. Our tactics are not rich enough in realistic transportation infrastructure (read capacity) planning as to realize our strategies. This process becomes a mechanism to never expand because we plan unrealistic tactics for our strategies (like nodal development, which did not solve transportation). Unrealistic projections of what can be expected (or possible) utilizing the three (or subset of) strategies with insufficient tactics to accomplish the projections, leaving us with insufficient land use choices to meet projected needs (we failed). Recommendations will be too vague to have an impact in guiding growth. We create solutions that are not feasible for economic reasons. We spiral into perpetual reset of the plan, supplanting other planning needs. We spend too much time and money debating philosophies about growth and end up with a plan that is either rejected by the Land Conservation and Development Commission or remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals, and by the time we get a plan adopted, it is outdated and we need to start the process all over. The urban growth boundary (UGB) may end up needing to be expanded further. We expand the UGB to include prime farm and forest lands. We have a closed process with only ""experts" controlling the outcome. The process chokes off the opportunity of completing/reaching solution to the UGB question. We reach conclusions and decisions rather than broad consensus. The City Council modifies the critical components of the plan so that the final version barely resembles the collective thinking of the CRG. The process does not generate broadly supported solutions. CRG members do not support group decisions and positions outside the group structure with their peers and the public. People will be angry and disappointed, creating a setback for the entire community, with no shared vision. Every participant and decision-maker reverts to his or her old way of thinking and speaking so the conversation in the end is not at all a new one. Strong voices overpower, and after all the work to bring new perspectives into the process it is the same (squeaky wheels characterizing) the process. Innovation and agreement in the community is not supported, desired results do not occur. Eugene fails to fulfill the quality of life that we all expect of Eugene. We will get, or stay, so entrenched in linear thinking that we will miss the opportunity to really achieve some wonderful direction and livability for Eugene. Best Outcomes We agree on a new UGB by February 2011 (as a council). Having time frames and trying to speed the process along, we progress as a community to implement the plan at lightning speed. We come up with a strategy to address the UGB issue and shaping Eugene's future that is agreeable to almost everyone's MINUTES—Joint Meeting of Eugene City Council/ November 22, 2010 Page 2 Eugene Planning Commission