My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 09/27/06 Work Session
>
Item A: Annual Joint Meeting with Eugene Planning Commission
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:57:35 PM
Creation date
9/20/2006 3:47:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/27/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 /> <br />ENGINEERS <br /> <br />PRO J E C T M A' NAG E R S <br /> <br />PLANNERS <br /> <br />August 11, 2006 <br /> <br />Eugene Planning Commission <br />c/o Eugene Planning Division <br />99 West Tenth Avenue <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br /> <br />Dear Planning Commission Members: <br /> <br />I had planned to coming to your Thursday afternoon open house ,at Petersen's Barn <br />Community Center. Unfortunately~ my clients' needs prevented me from attending, <br />so I have written down some of my thoughts for you to consider. The City needs to <br />get back oil track by planning in a more comprehensive manner. <br /> <br />1. As a Land Use Planner who has worked in Illinois, Oregon, and California as a <br />City Planning Director and Community Development Director and, in <br />addition, also worked as a private consultant Land Use Planner in Washington, <br />Nevada, Idaho, and Hawaii, I am continually surprised by the piecemeal <br />approach Eugene is continuing to take in planning. A couple of recent <br />examples are the Goal 5 Natural Resource Inventory and Parks, Recreation, <br />and Open Space Plan (PROS). Both ofthes'e planning efforts were done out of <br />context of the MetroPlan. The community has no idea what effect adopting <br />Goal 5 will have on the various other aspects or elements of the MetroPlan. <br />Then PROS was done without first deciding where and how the community is <br />going to grow, nor tied to a mechanism that tracks land supply reductions. The <br />work ECONorthwest has done on the commercial and industrial land study is <br />an excellent start; however, what is the status; where is the residential land <br />supply component? These efforts .are just the beginning. The information,. <br />inquiry research programs, etc. need a home and a budget to keep the land <br />supply information up to date. (1 thinkit should be LCOG.) <br /> <br />2. In addition to the above, the Planning Commission's highest priority must be <br />-- to tackle fue_question-oithe__Gommunity.'BJancLsuppl.y--E_v.en_i_flheinformatiou------- ___________ _ <br />with which the Planning Commission must make its decisions is not perfect. I <br />support higher densities; however, higher densities do not eliminate the need to <br />expand the Urban Growth Boundary. The following cites just some of the <br />reasons why this is true. <br /> <br />VOICE 541.687.1081 <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />FAX 541.345.6599 <br /> <br />\VEB'J RH'vVEB.COlv\ <br />OREGON 97401 <br /> <br />4 76 5 V I L LA G E P LA Z A L 0 0 P <br /> <br />SU1TE 201 <br /> <br />EUGENE <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.