My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2012
>
CC Agenda - 04/23/12 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2012 12:19:41 PM
Creation date
4/20/2012 11:53:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/23/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
33
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
Carleen Reilly, Eugene, said she was dismayed at Lane County’s efforts to give <br />County Commissioner’s sole authority over property between the UGB and the <br />Metro Plan Boundary. She thought advance planning would allow the Sheriff’s <br />Office and other emergency services to focus on crime, health emergencies and <br />house fires instead of being engaged in search and rescue during flooding. She <br />commented that the drinking water ordinances proposed for the McKenzie would <br />have come in handy in dealing with the flood conditions they experienced. She <br />thought prevention would have been less expensive and less emotional wrenching <br />than cleaning up the crisis. She stated that water must be their first priority over <br />gravel resources. She thought County staff could focus on their primary task <br />instead of throwing all personnel into search and rescue. She commented that <br />regional planning is a prevention measure and a flood is a failure to plan. She <br />urged that the Metro Boundary UGB region be maintained with multiple <br />jurisdiction decision making. <br /> <br />Lee Deveau, Eugene, said she was in opposition to the proposal by the Lane <br />County Board of Commissioners to amend the current Metro Plan. She stated that <br />she is a resident concerned about her community. She thought the Metro Plan <br />should continue in its present form as a collaborative process between the cities of <br />Eugene and Springfield and Lane County. She thought it was appropriate and <br />important that the two cities have a vote on proposed development and it would <br />be negligent for the cities to abdicate their responsibility to their residents and <br />leave land use decisions solely in the jurisdiction of Lane County. She stated the <br />Metro Plan has served its function well as a collaborative planning tool that <br />includes all stakeholders in decision making. She thought they would be doing <br />more collaboration instead of less. She urged the cities of Springfield and Eugene <br />to vote against the proposed amendment and continue the current Metro Plan. <br /> <br />Jozef Siekiel Zdzienicki, Eugene, opposed Ordinance PA 1281. He said the <br />interface between urban and rural areas is the one where the most conflicts arise. <br />He said if the ordinance is passed, there will be less voices heard. He thought the <br />Robinson issue could be solved with site specific designations. He thought the <br />water issue in Springfield could be resolved with an IGA. <br /> <br />Walt Johnson, Eugene, asked that Ordinance PA 1281 not be approved. He was <br />concerned with the acceptance of this proposal that LCOG will disappear. He <br />said if that is the case, more citizen involvement will be taken out of the picture. <br />He thought since they were on the cusp of making UGB decisions, it makes more <br />sense to do that now. <br /> <br />Joel Narva, Eugene, said he sent a letter to the elected officials. He said his <br />comments are addressed to the city councilors of Eugene and Springfield. He <br />asked them to deny Ordinance PA 1281. He thought if the city councils give up <br />their authority they might be making a huge mistake. He commented that if the <br />cities give up their sole authority of the lands to the County, it will be easier for <br />industries and sand and gravel and residential developments that are not <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.