Laserfiche WebLink
be good for the City Council to know each time it took action if the proposed action would violate any of <br />the GMPs. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said the refinement plan update was a concern not only of the Planning Commission, but also <br />identified regularly through public input from neighborhood leaders and the public at-large that the tools <br />were outdated. The Planning Commission found it difficult to make land use recommendations with <br />outdated tools. The scoping project outlined in the work program assumed neighborhood based refinement <br />planning could be done with existing resources. She said the Planning Commission wanted to know if the <br />City Council was interested in finding a mechanism to look at the refinement plans, many of which were <br />20 years old. Some of those refinements may need only minor adjustments, while others would need to be <br />completely rewritten. Appropriate tools needed to be identified to discover the most effective method for <br />individual neighborhoods. She emphasized including this in the work program was not a request for new <br />funding. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said code amendments should be consistent with the GMPs. She said she never seen staff <br />recommend not moving forward with a zoning change, land use designation, or variance on the basis of <br />inconsistency with refinement plans. She opined doing refinement plans was a “waste of money” because <br />they were not adhered to. She added the current language regarding opportunity siting had moved away <br />from the original intent and would end up destroying neighborhoods. She asked for more information on <br />transportation planning. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council on behalf of the Planning Commission for its input on the work <br />program. He asked that the City Council provide more input on the code amendment process, as this was <br />an issue of high interest by the public. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy thanked the Planning Commission for the amazing amount of work it undertook. She <br />thought taking time to further review the FY08 work program would produce a better product. She invited <br />commissioners to send probing questions to the City Council. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner reviewed issues identified by the council for further discussion, including but not limited to <br />HB 3337, refinement planning, code amendments, sequencing of projects, and clarification of resource <br />allocation. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jones envisioned at least two work sessions, one to <br />finalize and provide direction on the Planning Commission work program, and a second one to discuss <br />broad, regional issues in preparation for the joint elected officials meeting in early 2008. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said she would support a joint elected officials meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan asked staff to schedule a Planning Commission work session to debrief today’s meeting. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission at 1:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy adjourned the City Council at 1:25 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Angel Jones <br />City Manager pro tem <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />