New Search
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />of parks, recreation and open space for the City; and, 4) listed community goals and identified <br />nine strategies for obtaining those goals. (Rec. OE J, p. 9). The November, 2004 draft PROS <br />Plan also included tables showing the MAC'S proposed actions for parks, open space and <br />recreation facilities (with identified priorities) and tables setting forth costs for priority capital <br />improvements. (Rec. OE J, pgs. 59 -68, 96 -106). Before the PROS Plan was considered by the <br />City's Planning Commission, the specific project and priorities that were in the November, 2004 <br />draft were removed. (Rec. 920). <br />On October 10, 2005, the City's Planning Commission held a work session to discuss the <br />PROS Plan. (Rec. 919 - 928). On October 11, the Planning Commission held a public hearing <br />on the draft Plan. (Rec. 904 -911). At that time, City staff was proposing that the PROS Plan be <br />adopted as a refinement to the Metro Plan. (Rec. 904). However, staff noted that this was not <br />a typical refinement plan because it was "aspirational" in nature. (Rec. 904). Specifically, at the <br />October 11, 2005, public hearing City staff described the PROS Plan to the Planning <br />Commission in the following manner: <br />Parks Planning Manager Carolyn Weiss stated that the PROS Comprehensive <br />Plan was organized into six chapters that included a planning framework, <br />implementation recommendations, strategies for achieving the vision, financing <br />sources and evaluation measures. She said that the PROS Comprehensive Plan <br />was a refinement to the Metro Plan; however, unlike many refinement plans this <br />one was primarily aspirational and did not rely on Chapter 9 for implementation. <br />She said staff was proposing a housekeeping ordinance that would repeal the <br />provisions in Chapter 9 that referred back to the 1989 parks plan. (Rec. 904). <br />The Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that it adopt the PROS Plan, with <br />several amendments. (Rec. 643 -644). <br />At the November 28, 2005, City Council Work Session, the City Attorney's office was <br />asked to provide the Mayor and City Council with a memorandum addressing some specific <br />'`City staff explained to the Planning Commission that the projects and priorities were removed from the <br />November, 2004 draft plan and placed in a separate document called the PROS Proj ects and Priorities Plan, which <br />would go through a separate adoption process by the Eugene City Council following adoption of the PROS Plan. <br />(Rec. 920). This was done, staff explained, because the project list needed to be a "living" document that retained <br />flexibility and that could be updated to reflect the changing desires and needs of the community. (Rec. 920). <br />Page 4 - BRIEF OF RESPONDENT <br />