CC Minutes - 11/22/99 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kit Larsen, 2162 Kincaid Street, voiced his support of the proposal. Jori Lauch, 715 West 4th Avenue, spoke as a representative of Eugene School District 4J. He submitted written comments to the council and raised concern over restrictions on public lands that the ordinance would create. He suggested flexibility in the ordinance for schools. Michael Roberts, 1919 Myers Road, opined that the proposed ordinance was in direct opposition to the City's growth management Policy 1 goals. He added that pipes did not add pollution to waterways. Moving on, he urged the council to protect the urban growth boundary (UGB) against sprawl and raised concern over the amount of developable land the ordinance would take away within the UGB. He also raised concern over what he considered to be a lack of appropriate citizen involvement in the process. Dave Hauser, 2168 Elkhorn Road, spoke as a representative of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce. He opined that the ordinance was a land use issue. He said that the Council was trying to circumvent the land use process in an effort to fast-track the ordinance. He said that the public had not been properly informed of the ultimate impacts of the ordinance. He raised concern over the second phase of the proposal that would call for a 75 foot no build zone on each side of designated key waterways. He said that separating the proposal into phases was misleading and wrong and said that the Chamber of Commerce felt so strongly on the issue that it was prepared to take legal action to see that appropriate land use processes were followed. Keith Nastiuk, 551 Montana Way, spoke against the proposal. He said that it was a land use issue and raised concern over the speed at which the proposal was being put into action. He stressed that citizens had not been properly informed of the proposal's ultimate impacts to them and called for a postponement of the proposed ordinance. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, spoke on behalf of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce. He spoke against the proposal and called for appropriate study of its effects. He stressed the importance of the City confirming that existing development permits would vest under current regulations and of confirming a date for vesting of approved projects that would be on the day the ordinance went into effect and not the day that the concept was introduced. He raised concern over the criteria for defining a key waterway and suggested that there would be an ever expanding list of them within the city limits. He urged the council to consider specific exemptions for the ordinance. Michael Farthing, PO Box 1147, spoke against the ordinance. He raised concern with what he considered the speed with which the ordinance was being implemented and suggested that there was a clear agenda by councilors to stop development in certain areas of the City. He stressed that the proposal was a land use decision and called for the land use process to be implemented. He asked that the record be held open. Margaret Thumel, 1285 Alfaretta Street, spoke against the proposal. She said that it was a land use issue and suggested that some of the councilors had a personal agenda to fast-track the proposal through approval. She added that such fast-tracking would only fuel citizen mistrust of the City Council. She opined that the proposal needed to be reworked to make the proposed phases less vague. Tim Hovit, 3405 Baldy View Lane, said that there were no exceptions for outfall into the channels from abutting properties. He said that the proposal needed massive reworking. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 1999 Page 6 7:30 p.m.