My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 03/13/12 JEO Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2012
>
CC Minutes - 03/13/12 JEO Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/6/2012 11:06:11 AM
Creation date
4/30/2012 1:19:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Joint Elected Officials
CMO_Meeting_Date
3/13/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
Farr commented that he was happy they were moving forward with this. <br />Leiken thought the relationships between Springfield, Eugene and Lane County <br />have improved greatly since HB3337 passed. He commented that no matter what <br />they end up doing, that drinking water will be protected. He added that it is a <br />large priority for him. <br />MOTION: to move that the Lane County Board of Commissioners close the <br />public record on Tuesday March 27 at 5:00 p.m. <br />Bozievich MOVED, <br />Stewart asked that the motion include a Third Reading and Deliberation of the <br />ordinances for June 13, 2012. <br />Bozievich modified his motion: to close the Public Record at 5:00 p.m. on March <br />27 and set the Third Reading for June 13, 2012 for Ordinance PA 1281, <br />Ordinance PA 1283, Ordinance PA 1284, Ordinance PA 1290 and Ordinance <br />No. 2 -12. <br />Stewart SECONDED. <br />VOTE: 4 -0. <br />Ralston thought since Lane County was taking the lead on this, they should make <br />a decision before anyone else. <br />MOTION: to move to keep the record open for two more weeks to March 27 and <br />have a work session on May 16. <br />Pishoneri MOVED, Moore SECONDED. <br />VOTE: 4 -0. <br />Stewart stated that he had concerns about the additional layer and different land <br />use laws that apply inside the Metro Boundary. He thought if at a minimum the <br />land use laws were the same as what is allowed in the County, that Ms. Robinson <br />would have been able to proceed. He indicated they are different now. He said <br />the reason the Metro Boundary was there was the potential for growth in the <br />future, but they were told because of the location of the piece of property, <br />Springfield will not be able to justify moving in that direction. He commented <br />that there are protections on the land to protect it from future growth from the city <br />but there is no intent to move it out. He thought that needed to be dealt with. He <br />said they need to bring the plan up to date to what the needs are today. <br />19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.