05/22/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ identified in the community for many years. It involves all the publicly- '." owned land around Mt. Pisgah and the privately-owned land along the river. Mr. Ball said each of the three jurisdictions is concerned about the zoning in the area, and the jurisdictions share the responsibility for making a public decision of the values in the area and how they will be addressed. If the cities are willing to commit to a short time line for a joint effort to plan the future of the Buford Park and the surrounding area with the County, the NR zoning makes sense. If the cities are not willing to go along, he will accept the concept of a management policy although the recommended management policy is not acceptable to him. It will have to be strengthened. In that case, the cities will have no obligation to participate in the long-range planning. Ms. Wooten asked Mr. Ball if he was proposing that City land be part of a land exchange. He replied that he would consider all options. Ms. Larson reported that there was no official discussion of the Springfield City Council, but the Council probably will not oppose the other jurisdic- tions. . Mr. Obie said the Eugene Council wished to resolve the issue. He said the council will consider Mr. Ball's suggestion. He also said there might be support in the Eugene City Council for a more restrictive operational management plan. Mr. Gassman said the Springfield councilors present agreed that the issue concerning Mt. Pisgah is an area-wide one. They would be willing to partici- pate in planning. The meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. (Recorded by Betty Lou Rarick) 1 746C ;. MINUTES--Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council May 22, 1985 Page 11 Lane County Board of Commissioners