New Search
1 <br /> _______ ' <br /> Date: September 18, 2009 <br /> To: Kurt Corey <br /> ■ From: Johnny Medlin <br /> t u G t N t <br /> Parks and CC' Mark Schoening ' <br /> Open Space Subject: Update on EmX Amazon Creek Alignment <br /> 1 <br /> Keeping Eugene Green The purpose of this memo is to update you regarding concerns expressed in my <br /> earlier letter of January 2008 (attached) and to provide my perspective regarding <br /> A DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS1 the current Amazon alignment options potential impacts to Amazon Creek and our <br /> responsibilities therein. <br /> Will KUU)tvttltLVU <br /> EUGENE, OREGON 97402 <br /> Before I get into the detail of this memo, I would like to make a couple introductory <br /> '682'8 ;2 comments to set the context for my remaining comments about the planning for <br /> FAX (541 541) J 682 4882 <br /> an EmX alignment along Amazon Creek. <br /> WWW.EUGENE- OR.GOV /PARKS <br /> What I believe we have here are two very positive programs (Parks and Mass <br /> Transit) that both provide a high community value and share many goals in <br /> regards to sustainability and social equity. Both of these programs are good for <br /> our community. While there is much the two programs have in common, there is <br /> PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PIANNING <br /> also a difference in their primary focus. As the Director of a park and open space <br /> agency that also has substantial waterway and water quality responsibilities, I <br /> PARK OPERATIONS i doubt anyone is surprised that I prefer a naturalistic or restoration approach when <br /> dealing with these natural resource assets. LTD being a mass transit agency, 1 <br /> URBAN FORESTRY i doubt anyone is surprised that obtaining constructed transportation infrastructure <br /> to provide mass transit routes is LTD's primary focus. <br /> NATURAL RESOURCES LTD, in managing what will be a very expensive project, is understandably <br /> concerned and motivated to contain costs. The Parks and Open Space Division, <br /> on the other hand, as the agency which manages the asset they wish to impact, <br /> want them to do additional things to protect our asset that of course will add to the <br /> project costs. <br /> With these differences, I doubt that anyone is really surprised that two very <br /> positive programs sometimes struggle to come to a consensus when a project of <br /> one conflicts with the focus of the other. The issue then becomes one of the <br /> public needing to provide guidance in the balancing of community values while at <br /> the same time determining what they can afford. <br /> s Kurt you will recall that in my January, 2008 memo, I outlined several issues of <br /> concern to the Parks and Open Space (POS) Division regarding Lane Transit <br /> EUGENE/ <br />