CC Minutes - 09/25/06 Meeting
City of Eugene
CC Minutes - 09/25/06 Meeting
6/9/2010 10:31:38 AM
11/17/2006 2:20:18 PM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
the towers were greatly concerned that one would fall on them, too. He said EWEB agreed to replace the <br />two fallen towers and the two next to them with steel towers. While he felt that was a good start, he did not <br />think it was enough. He stated that EWEB would not replace a fifth tower, the one that was immediately <br />north of the one that had failed, although it was leaning. He related that EWEB indicated that the tower <br />would not lean after the wires were reconnected. He did not feel this was reassuring, especially to the <br />residents who could see the leaning tower from their windows. He stated that the towers had been placed <br />there in the 1970s prior to any residences and were supposed to stand for at least 100 years. He thought <br />EWEB’s 35-year-old assumptions were not valid today. He questioned how EWEB could think that it <br />would not happen again. He said according to meteorologists violent weather was on the rise and predicted <br />there would be more storms of great magnitude. He reiterated Ms. Renkert’s requests for more information <br />and cooperation in rerouting the towers. <br /> <br />Renee Gottesman <br />, 473 Covey Lane, member of the board of the QRHA, had been out of town when the <br />towers fell. She had been shocked to return to the damage that occurred. She said people had lost <br />confidence in the structures. She related that she was present at the EWEB meeting at which the Quail Run <br />residents testified. She was disappointed in EWEB’s response to this situation. She hoped that the City <br />Council could exert some influence on EWEB. <br /> <br />Matt Svoboda <br />, 492 Covey Lane, stated that he and his wife looked out their bedroom window at the <br />leaning transmission tower. He related that it was scary to look at. He urged EWEB to replace it with a <br />more stable tower or, better yet, to move the whole set of towers. He read the tail end of Ms. Renkert’s <br />statement as she had run out of time. Ms. Renkert wanted to emphasize that this type of transmission <br />tower was in use in many different areas of the community. She wished to underscore that EWEB’s <br />Website encouraged the public to participate in the utility’s process. She no longer believed this was true. <br /> <br />Keith Nastiuk <br />, 489 Covey Lane, stated that the number one issue the QRHA was addressing was that <br />EWEB felt the utility facilities were there first and, therefore, should not be relocated. He averred that the <br />dynamics of the area had changed and there was now a community of 200 people living there; some <br />residents with a sizable investment in the area. He believed EWEB officials needed to sit down with all of <br />the residents in order to provide them with the opportunity to work with EWEB staff to relocate the towers. <br />He asserted that the towers no longer belonged there. <br /> <br />Kate Perle <br />, 4740 Wendover Street, registered her opposition to the “ongoing street annexations” in the <br />River Road/Santa Clara area. She had seen a notice on a telephone pole regarding a street annexation <br />scheduled to be considered on October 5. She was angered by this, as street annexations were supposed to <br />be voluntary. She alleged that the residents who applied for annexation of their property in order to get a <br />building permit were asked by staff if the street adjacent to them could be “piggybacked” onto their <br />annexation and the residents had said no. She alleged that staff had proceeded with this annexation request <br />anyway. She felt the street annexations were surrounding residents and removing from them the right to <br />vote should “wholesale” annexation eventually happen. She called this an insidious, underhanded, and <br />highly unfriendly treatment of the community. She asserted that City staff talked about annexation and <br />likened it to being a band-aid that needed to be ripped off and would only hurt for a little bit. She found <br />this offensive because the River Road/Santa Clara area was “not a sore on the edge of Eugene.” Rather, it <br />was a “vibrant, valuable community” that she felt the City should treat with dignity and respect. She <br />averred that the River Road/Santa Clara community was filled with capable collaborative “folks” who were <br />interested in a positive future, but if City staff “continued to step on peoples’ toes” it would cause <br />irreparable harm to area residents’ trust. She stated that both the Santa Clara Community Organization <br />and the River Road Community Organization opposed connecting street annexations with property <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 25, 2006 Page 2 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.