09-26-16 Work Session - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

solve. We failed to articulate the process in a way that led to clear understanding on the part of interested community members. And, we failed to consistently highlight the impacts of different solutions suggested to solve the problem. These are serious mistakes that need to be fixed, and I personally and the Planning Team as a whole, are committed to fixing them. I am an optimist at heart. I believe we can help the community create a fair process for moving forward, and stand ready to support that work to the best of my professional ability. We have much to offer, once we have earned your trust. I reali me the opportunity to earn it. It is so important to me and to my colleagues, that we find ways to work together toward our common goals. Otherwise, we will not reach that future Eugene I described earlier, and the same high level of livability that we enjoy today. There are many ways to address the problems we face; but it is critical that we do address them, and not ignore them. I see an opportunity for our planners to support neighborhoods in future planning projects, but I will not be advocating for a particular process structure or outcome in the South Willamette Area. We may be asked to offer potential options, or comment on suggested ways of moving forward such as the Clark/Brown proposal. The most powerful way I can think of influencing the structure of a future process, is for community groups to talk to each other about what they would be willing to support. I Thank you Christine an Terri introduced other city staff including Eric Brown (planner), Rene Kane (Neighborhood liaison), Bree Nicolello on the Planning Commission, and George Brown City Councilor. Refinement Plans and Area Planning First question was on Refinement Plans, what are they, and will the city support putting resources toward it? At the beginning of the South Willamette process, city considered refinement plan, but went with Area Planning (AP) Planning at the time the project was initiated. Tangible design based planning (explained in Area Planning Fact Sheet) with 3 steps: 1) community vision, 2) code, 3) public investments to build. This was used in Walnut Station (WS) with 20 pages of code. The key difference between WS and SW-SAZ was the lack of adopted plan policies in SW-SAZ (SW Concept plan was approved, but not adopted). https://www.eugene-or.gov/ImageRepository/Document?documentID=22904 With Area Planning, the approach is design-driven. Adoption of policies is key difference. Paul Conte interjected that Area Planning is staff driven. Refinement plan is driven by a neighborhood/community planning team. Terri said that the code and statutes define Refinement Plan (1995 statute ORS 197.200). Ann Davies, city attorney, said 197.200 statute, anomalous state law. Refinement plan not necessarily driven by this. Terri said that Area Planning was not necessarily staff driven, with RP neighborhood based. Paul clarified that OR Revised Statute 197.200 t constrain RP. In state legislature, House Bill 30. 1000 Friends of Oregon, realtors, builders Page . 2 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016