Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Levis suggested that the council provide the commission president with more than three <br />minutes for explanation of the commission's position when major issues were discussed. She <br />recalled that, in the past, there were many occasions where a commissioner had been present at <br />the meeting to answer questions in the same way as staff, and the commission proposed to revive <br />that tradition. <br /> <br />Mr. Rusch read a statement regarding the Natural Resources Study. He said that it was a <br />personal statement, but the commission had supported its recitation. Mr. Rusch's letter <br />advocated for the council's adoption of the standard approach to the uplands sites in the Natural <br />Resource Study Inventory, rather than the safe harbor approach that the council had tentatively <br />directed staff to implement. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher acknowledged the fiscal issues that led the council to consider adoption of the safe <br />harbor approach but urged the council to adopt the inventory recommended to it by the <br />commission and to consider the safe harbor approach when the City reached the Economic, <br />Social, Environmental, and Energy (EESE) analysis stage. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher believed that the commission's presence at work sessions would facilitate <br />communication between the two bodies. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher thanked the council for the opportunity to work on the residential infill study and <br />believed that the result would be a win-win situation for all. He said that the City needed to <br />determine how the community would grow, and he did not think there was an answer to that yet. <br /> <br />Ms. Colbath read a statement conveying her hopes that the City recognized the need for balance <br />and the connections between things. She called for caution in the application of tax incentives. <br />She advocated for support of education and affordable homeownership, the latter particularly on <br />the periphery of downtown. Ms. Colbath also advocated for support of the environment as an <br />economic driver for tourism and for continued support of agriculture. She called for forthright <br />dialogue and decision-making that recognized the interdependence of many factors. She called <br />for independent and adequate information to support decision-making, community involvement in <br />decision-making, and an evaluation of the decisions that were made. She supported regional <br />planning. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan thanked the council for appointing him to the commission. He said he found the <br />commission's work both challenging and enjoyable. He said that the residential infill study was of <br />importance to him. He recalled that the Growth Management Study (GMS) results had indicated <br />that the community had an interest in vertical growth, but the commission was finding not-in-my- <br />neighborhood opposition to that throughout the community. He said that the subcommittee <br />working on the infill study had begun to formulate ideas to help people to realize that infill was not <br />a bad thing, and that housing could be intensified in already developed areas. Mr. Duncan said <br />that it was his hope the work led to more redevelopment of the community's many aging industrial <br />and commercial properties. He said that one of his concerns was based on his involvement in the <br />Region 2050 study, which indicated there would be considerable pressure on the community in <br />terms of population growth. He shared Mr. Rusch's interest in long-range planning and said the <br />commission would take a look at where Eugene would be in 20-40 years. He thought such an <br />examination was due. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ solicited council question and comments. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />