Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Bj6rklund's remarks regarding the conditions under which the committee <br />operated. She said the committee felt its charge was to clarify and improve the existing language and <br />structure of and amendments in the context of what it was intended to be. The outcomes were intended to be <br />the same as envisioned under the original plan. Mr. Sorenson concurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said the committee had asked staff more than once to help it understand if the revised criteria <br />tipped the balance in the plan. The committee had also discussed the issues raised regarding hydrological <br />connections, and what was intended by the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Sorenson suggested the plan was a model for cooperation and a model for protecting other open space <br />outside the city limits on the periphery of the community. He suggested a task force on open space modeled <br />on the committee be formed in the future. <br /> <br />Mr. Sorenson suggested more work needed to be done to clarify the plan regarding the following issues: 1) <br />isolated parcels; 2) the relationship between the supply of industrial land in the community and the West <br />Eugene Wetlands Plan; and 3) subsurface hydrological connections. He indicated he was open to any process <br />suggestion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart supported the continuation of the council/board committee as a forum to consider the issues raised in <br />testimony. He indicated interest in a brief staff response substantiating the facts shared with the committee <br />regarding subsurface hydrology and the primacy of surface water in west Eugene. Mr. Fart asked if staff <br />would response to the specific concerns raised in the testimony submitted by FRESH. Mr. Bj6rklund said <br />yes. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported the maximum protection of wetlands. She wanted a staff response to all the testimony <br />raised. Ms. Taylor thanked those who testified and said the benefit of a public hearing was that it gave <br />people an opportunity to point out flaws in the amendments or the existing criteria. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor advocated for a joint work session rather than the council/board committee setting as a means to <br />process the issues under consideration. She said if the council and board could not reach agreement, she <br />supported the approach suggested by Mr. Boles. <br />Mr. Green recollected that a year past the council and board held a joint hearing during which many people <br />had directed their comments to a single commissioner. He said that it had been suggested that the board and <br />council continued to be at odds over the amendments, and he did not agree. Mr. Green believed the board had <br />come to the hearing believing it would be moving toward a third ordinance reading and a final resolution of <br />the issue. The board had reviewed the materials before the elected officials and there had been no discussion, <br />only agreement with the recommendations of the council/board committee. He said that if the council/board <br />committee decided to reconvene and do extra work he did not object, but he was prepared to move on. Mr. <br />Green did not perceive a need for a joint work session and suggested that staff respond to the testimony in <br />writing. <br /> <br />Ms. Morrison thanked the council/board committee for its work on the matter at hand. She believed the <br />committee met its charge and had succeeded in clarifying the language that had been in question; she agreed <br />with Mr. Green that the board was prepared to move forward and another joint meeting was not necessary. <br />Regarding the issue of subsurface hydrology, Ms. Morrison indicated her questions about the issue were <br />satisfied when she read the committee's minutes. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- August 4, 1999 Page 6 <br /> Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners <br /> <br /> <br />