My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1: Metro Subcommittee Report
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 06/01/09 Joint Elected Officials Meeting
>
Item 1: Metro Subcommittee Report
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:16:07 PM
Creation date
5/29/2009 10:56:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/1/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Councilor Clark asked if there was an arbiter body that Springfield could look towards <br />that would be acceptable. <br />Councilor Lundberg stated that the cities and county work for and represent the same <br />people. The issue is that there is more that is linked three-ways. <br />Kent asked for clarification about whether the autonomy centered on land use as well as <br />transportation. <br />Councilor Ralston responded that it was mainly land use. He said in his opinion, public <br />safety is okay. <br />Kent noted that if land use is where the cities want autonomy, HB 3337 distinguishes the <br />cities and Springfield won’t have to get Eugene’s approval. <br />Greg added that is the intent of the structure of refinement plans nested within the Metro <br />Plan. All other policies within the Metro Plan are still there. If one wants to change, still <br />need all three to weigh in. <br />Matt stated that if we assume there is a revised Metro Plan, we could identify what <br />should be removed and what should not. Can identify regional issues and clearly identify <br />where autonomy is appropriate. To summarize, would look at three sections: 1) <br />autonomy; 2) agreements; and 3) what to remove. <br />Councilor Clark asked if an ACT would address some of the issues. <br />Greg responded that all three have to co-adopt regional items. MPC adopts Regional <br />Transportation Plan. Cities are also developing city-specific transportation system plans. <br />An ACT forwards priorities to OTC. <br />Commissioner Handy added that ODOT Region 2 also trades projects. <br />Greg stated that one question to address is what about the Metro Plan can be preserved. <br />Some elements provide overarching guidance that is carried out locally. <br />Commissioner Handy stated that there isn’t a clear path for autonomy without <br />responsibility. What parts of the Metro Plan aren’t impacted? <br />Commissioner Stewart stated that he thought we should work through the issues and <br />salvage what we can without doing away with the Metro Plan. <br />Lisa highlighted the two diagrams and said there are areas we need to examine more <br />closely. Need to separate out those areas that are working and determine where individual <br />discretion is appropriate. <br />JEO Subcommittee Meeting page 6 5/7/2009 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.