Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Green referred to testimony from Tom Pringle regarding the failure of the plan and expressed <br />a desire for clarification because it was his understanding that the WEWP was a national model. <br /> <br />Mr. Green concurred with Mr. Cornacchia's regarding the personal nature of the attacks on him. <br /> <br />Mr. Green questioned why there was no minority report from the planning commissions. He <br />believed that there were good ideas to be found in the plan amendments as well as in Mr. <br />Cornacchia's recommendations. He was interested in finding balance. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that while he disagreed with Mr. Cornacchia's proposals, he believed he was <br />to be commended for bringing up the issues he raised in advance of the public hearing so that <br />everyone could respond. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr also commended Mr. Cornacchia for raising the issues he had, and said he appreciated <br />the public's comments in response. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner also was interested in pursuing Mr. Boles' suggestion. He asked that the County <br />and City counsels consult on the topic. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor believed that people were upset by the change in the focus of the hearing. She said <br />that people were also upset because they perceive the criteria were weakened and because they <br />could not discuss specific. She said that mitigated wetlands were not like original wetlands. She <br />agreed with Mr. Boles that the economy was dependent on the environment. Ms. Taylor was <br />also interested in pursuing Mr. Boles' suggestion that the City determine whether it could make <br />individual decisions on sites within the City's urban growth boundary. <br /> <br />Mr. Sorenson acknowledged the WEWP as a national model. He asked when the elected <br />officials would meet again. <br /> <br />Ms. Dumdi said that she had both thoughtful testimony and sarcastic and rude testimony that <br />was unacceptable and unnecessary. She acknowledged the contributions of Steve Gordon of <br />Lane Council of Governments, who has been recognized nationally as a wetlands expert and <br />whose opinion was valued in many circles. Ms. Dumdi termed Mr. Gordon the architect of the <br />plan, and said that because he did such a good job, he also received the attention of the elected <br />officials in Washington, DC, who directed funds toward the Bureau of Land Management that <br />made the acquisition program possible. <br /> <br />Ms. Weeldreyer said that as a former resident of New Orleans, she was well aware of the impact <br />of wetland fill; as member of the McKenzie Watershed Council, she recognized that people could <br />not ignore nature. Ms. Weeldreyer said that as representative of some of the county's rural <br />areas, she was aware of the need to balance jobs that can sustain families against <br />environmental needs. She suggested that everyone had a different definition of balance. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey reminded the audience that if the two bodies did not agree on the proposed plan <br />amendments, there would be no amendments and the existing plan would be in effect. <br /> <br />Mr. Torrey said that while he respected the recommendations of the planning commissions, the <br />elected officials have the task of reviewing and adjusting the plan amendments package as <br />seemed appropriate. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials-- February 18, 1998 Page 16 <br /> Eugene City Council/Lane County Board of Commissioners <br /> <br /> <br />