Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e Mr. Lowe said that unless the commissioners extend the December 1 deadline, <br /> there is no additional time for developing an ordinance for County <br /> consideration. <br /> Mr. Boles argued that the proposed ordinance reflects public input and he <br /> urged the council to recommend County adoption or extension of the December 1 <br /> deadline to allow something more workable to be drafted. <br /> Mr. Roberts suggested that if the council considers the proposed ordinance <br /> workable, it should be forwarded to the County board. <br /> Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to recommend that <br /> the Lane County Board of Commissioners approve the proposed <br /> tree conservation ordinance for the area located outside the <br /> Eugene city limits and within the Eugene portion of the urban <br /> growth boundary. <br /> Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to amend the motion <br /> to include a recommendation for Option A. Roll call vote; the <br /> motion to amend carried unanimously, 5:0. <br /> Mr. Rutan said that after hearing testimony on both sides of the issue, he <br /> supported recommending approval of the proposed ordinance to the Lane County <br /> Board of Commissioners. <br /> Mr. Bennett suggested that comments be included in the recommendation to make <br /> e the commissioners aware that while a quick process had been required, the <br /> City hopes to continue working on the issue. Ms. Ehrman said it was <br /> important for a member of the council to represent the City when the <br /> commission considers the ordinance. <br /> Mayor Miller said it was important to make clear that the intent is not to <br /> stop development and that the council supports having dialogue with the <br /> Homebuilders Association. <br /> Mr. Boles agreed with Mr. Rutan and said that the intent is clearly not to <br /> stifle development, and that the proposed ordinance is reasonably <br /> well-crafted and should be forwarded to the commissioners with the comment <br /> that if there is a problem, the City wants to work with the County to resolve <br /> it without leaving the urbanizable forest unprotected. <br /> Mr. Gleason commented that having no ordinance would be worse than having one <br /> that could not be implemented. He suggested that the County needs to be <br /> aware that part of the council's consideration of any revisions to the <br /> proposed ordinance will be determination of whether the City could administer <br /> a revised ordinance. <br /> Roll call vote; the motion carried unanimously, 5:0. <br /> e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 6 <br /> ~ <br />