My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2006
>
CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:27:38 AM
Creation date
6/1/2006 2:01:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/10/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
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 images
View plain text
<br />Ms. Heinkel reported that LCOG presented information to DLCD on the desired products in the <br />Draft Strategy and the implementation measures to ensure they would happen at the local level. <br />Additionally, she stated that the legal framework within Oregon Revised Statues and Oregon <br />Administrative Rules would support such action without Regional Problem Solving. She shared <br />that the only product that could not occur without Regional Problem Solving, based upon what <br />was revealed by DLCD Director Shetterly and his staff, was the desire on the part of Oakridge <br />Mayor Weathers to redefine the State statutes that define farm and forest land. Different <br />administrative rules would need to be implemented to achieve that request; therefore, Regional <br />Problem Solving would need to occur. Ms. Heinkel added that the Land Capacity Model <br />provided very different results if one assumed there was an endless UGB expansion. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling voiced concern that for part of the region, the City would use one method, and for <br />another part of the region, it would use another method due to the withdrawal of Springfield and <br />Cottage Grove. He opined that such a process would not provide accurate information; <br />additionally, as the proposed plan would be voluntary, there was no way to force implementation. <br />In conclusion, Mr. Poling conceded that valuable information has been gathered as a result of the <br />2050 process; however, at this point, with the uncertainty created by the withdrawals of <br />Springfield and Cottage Grove, the future of the project was questionable. He said he would <br /> <br />support the motion with reservations. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy commented that the 2050 process reflected a genuine effort on the part of the City <br />to work with its regional partners from both large and small communities. <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor spoke to the issue of urban services and said additional cities could <br />ultimately be created by voters and hence would be the vehicle for delivering urban services if the <br />density levels in the model proved correct. He urged the council to continue with the Region <br />2050 conversation. <br /> <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:21 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectively submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Dennis M. Taylor <br /> <br /> <br />(Recorded by Joyce Ogden) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.