Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly thanked the commission for the high-quality work it did over the past year. He <br />appreciated the time the commission took to deliberate key issues. He endorsed the <br />recommendations set forth by Ms. Levis, and observed that sometimes the council got a good <br />idea of the commission's deliberation from the minutes, but outside delving into the minutes the <br />council sometimes did not know the commission's reasoning. He favored the suggestion for a <br />memorandum from the commission for that reason and thought having a commissioner present at <br />council work sessions would be useful. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted his concurrence with Mr. Rusch's remarks regarding the council's direction to staff <br />about the safe harbor approach but said he did not expect any change, which he considered <br />short-sighted. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Belcher's suggestion that the council adopt the <br />inventory and reduce the analysis level. <br /> <br />Referring to the work program, Mr. Kelly noted the funding allocated for site-specific nodal work <br />and the land use code amendments, but the schedule indicated nothing about site-specific nodal <br />planning. He asked what in the work plan addressed that funding. Planning Director Jan Childs <br />indicated that it was omitted as the result of an oversight. She anticipated that the work would <br />touch both the first and second half of the years, with work commencing in the fall and the bulk <br />occurring after the first of the new year. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner thought the recommendations very useful and endorsed the idea of a commission <br />memorandum. Speaking to the suggestion for an "adopt the councilor" he recalled that the <br />Human Rights Commission had suggested the same approach at one time, but that effort had not <br />lasted. He encouraged the commissioners to keep after the idea if they decided to implement it. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner emphasized the importance of long-range planning and said that the GMS did <br />Eugene little good if other communities nearby ignored the policies that were adopted by Eugene <br />or adopted policies that were odds with Eugene's policies. He noted that the commission often <br />had joint meetings on specific topics with the Lane County and Springfield planning commissions, <br />and he wished that the commissions had more joint meetings about how the jurisdictions <br />approached regional planning within the context of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area <br />General Plan to ask such questions as what was being done, and how it could be done in a better <br />way. <br /> <br />Speaking to the commission's effort on City policies related to infill and redevelopment, Mr. <br />Meisner said he was excited about the effort and hopeful about its results. He said that resistance <br />to infill had been universal throughout the city. He said that he had previously been optimistic <br />about nodes but the community opposition had been massive and came in some cases from <br />unexpected sources. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said the work program was very ambitious and she thanked the commission for its <br />willingness to do the work needed. She asked how the issues formerly addressed by the now <br />disbanded Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) were to be addressed in the future. Ms. Childs <br />indicated the CIC's work would be added to the commission's work program item, noting the work <br />program was drafted before the Budget Committee decided against funding staff support for the <br />CIC. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />