New Search
• <br /> Hammitt, Bob <br /> From: Lyle, Les <br /> To: Medlin, Johnny <br /> Cc: Hammitt, Bob <br /> Subject: RE: Amazon Park Planning Meeting <br /> Date: Saturday, April 02, 1994 9:05AM <br /> • <br /> Thanks for the note. I want to clarify something regarding my interest in this plan. I am not familiar at all with <br /> the process and its relationships to other plans and don't want to give the impression that I feel the process John <br /> is using is wrong. The key concem I had was how this first meeting was put together and the process of getting <br /> other participant from Transportation and Engineering. We didn't hear anything until after the postcard went out <br /> and then I think I initiated some questioning of what was expected. Other than that, which I don't want anyone to <br /> think I had a major issue with, I am in the dark just like everyone else as to what is the right process. I might <br /> have my opinions which you know I don't tend to hesitate to provide but I don't want to step on anyones toes or <br /> cause something to change if it is working well. The primary area where 1 think we can provide assistance is in <br /> the area of wetland protection, natural resource protection, and the relationships to CSWMP. I know Jack has a <br /> lot of knowledge in these areas too. So, I'm willing to help, but don't want to give any impression that I think <br /> things are broken and that a wholesale change is needed. 1 don't agree or disagree with Tim but just wanted to <br /> pass it on. He sometimes gets to focused on the environmental side and doesn't always keep in mind the <br /> multiple objectives side. I hope this note imparts my feelings which is hard to do on line. Give me a call. I'm ok, <br /> your ok. Thanks Les L <br /> From: Medlin, Johnny <br /> To: Lyle, Les <br /> Cc: Etter, John; Hammitt, Bob <br /> Subject: FW: Amazon Park Planning Meeting <br /> Date: Friday, April 01, 1994 9:27AM <br /> Les, I think some people are getting the idea we are doing <br /> this plan from scratch and therefore jumping into the process <br /> half -way through, but I don't think that is the case. Perhaps <br /> our biggest failing is not explaining what citizen process and <br /> approvals have gone on before to explain just what it is we <br /> are building from on the project we are doing now. <br /> The Amazon park plan is a park "development" plan. This plan <br /> is a refinement for this specific park from the items listed <br /> • in the Council adopted Parks and Recreation Plan which is the <br /> parent policy document. Another way of saying this might be <br /> that the Amazon general plan is a plan on how to get the <br /> things done that are listed in the parent document. Things <br /> such as lighted ballfields and the parking at the LTD transfer <br /> station are high priority projects specifically listed for <br /> this park in that council adopted plan. Other proposals can <br /> be aired and if they are not in conflict with the P&R Plan <br /> have a chance in getting into the development plan, but <br /> anything in opposition to the adopted plan either to add a <br /> project or delete one will have to go back to council to <br /> modify the parent document. The issue there becomes how much <br /> do you allow public to revisit policies and priorities in <br /> the policy document? <br /> John had some thoughts on this when 1 forwarded to Jim Tim <br /> Bingham's comments. I thought I would forward these to you. <br /> Page 1 <br />