2012-07-10_study_session_full - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the process that has been engaged in to date. However, the rhetoric has endeavored to discredit an open, transparent, and inclusive planning process. It has maligned the professional integrity of staff. It has made demands instead of concessions. The plan, however, makes no demands. It only provides guidance. It is not rhetoric. It is based on sound planning principles, practical data, thorough analysis of facts, and public input. It was drafted independent of a developer or political influence, or legislative pressure. Instead, it is a values-driven effort built upon consensus, albeit not unanimous consent, to develop an aggressive sustainability plan that guides the neighborhood. It, as a document, is beyond reproach. It is not the result of a perfect process. We recognize the importance of The Loop as a community asset. The preservation of The Loop is key to maintaining our community identity. We need business input to help identify ways to ensure the sustainability of the Loop. As such, we attempted multiple times in multiple ways to engage The Loop in this planning effort, including the property owners and business owners. Unfortunately it was not until nearing the end of the process that some members of the business community chose to become involved and chose to be selective in their involvement. We recognize that there is a demand for a compromise on a specific element of the plan. We tried to reach a compromise and thought we reached a compromise. We were surprised to learn we did not. Our attempts were ignored. It was all or nothing. This unfortunate predicament was created by a select few business owners. We have heard from multiple property owners that represent the other side but for whom there is no champion, and it is our job to represent them as well as many others who participated in the 15 month planning process. Their input deserves equal consideration. At the Plan Commission meeting last week we sat on our hands. Tonight we will present the other side of the story. What we want you to take away from this side of the story the facts. Mr. Lai provided additional information about the Plan. He stated that, as the Plan Commission members are aware, the Plan is a vision; it may not happen tomorrow, but could happen 10, 15 or 20 years from now; it is a vision of what is best for this neighborhood. He stated it is a long- range plan looking 15 to 20 years down the road and looking at what is best for the neighborhood in the future. He added that the Plan is composed of a number of components that are interrelated, not to be taken apart, otherwise it is not cohesive or coordinated; each component is important because they make up the whole plan and give the full picture, like a puzzle, if one piece is taken away, the full picture is not seen and the public should see the full picture. Mr. Lai stated that staff cannot recommend something other than the full picture. He added that the Plan looks at housing, transportation, parks, open space, density, land use, financing, all many parts, and it would be unprofessional to take the Plan apart and only present some of it. He stated, as the title of the Plan states, it is a sustainability plan for intergenerational use and could be for st generations to come in the 21 Century; looking forward and being progressive, thinking about future generations, that is what the nature of this neighborhood plan is, not thinking of our own benefit, but the benefit of the City and the neighborhood. Ms. Locke asked if this was the first time University City attempted to do a sustainability plan at the neighborhood level. st Mr. Lai stated it was and it also coincides with 21 Century trends occurring around the country. He stated the idea of sustainability was proposed by the United Nations a number of years ago. tm; E