CCMinutes - 04/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Manager, responded that a caveat in the statute could kick an inventory process into motion with any project. In addition, a Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) policy existed that required an annual update of the residential buildable lands supply. Mr. Meisner indicated his intention to support the motion. In response to a question from Mr. Poling, Mr. Coyle stated that PDD was undergoing the periodic review process. Ms. Muir added that the department was currently behind in this work. Mr. Poling asked when the assessment of the 2001 residential lands supply would be completed. Ms. Muir replied that it had been completed, but was required to be done every two years. Mr. Poling asked how approval of the motion would affect the discussion held earlier regarding the joint effort on the survey, in that it was being funded by the three governmental bodies. Mr. Coyle thought the buildable land survey issue would stand by itself. He added that staff would be available to answer questions, but not to actually conduct the work. He said approval of the item without approval of the project would represent a misalignment. Mr. Poling conveyed his concern that the City would fall behind in State-mandated work. Ms. Nathanson agreed, stating that the City was several years behind already. She asked when the survey was due to be completed. Ms. Muir replied that ~the clock would not start ticking" until the next year. Ms. Nathanson felt the project should be finished. She opined that when pet projects were prioritized above projects designated by law, it ended up placing the latter on a back burner. She said it was not possible to identify 27 things as top priorities. Mr. Pap~ wondered if there would be adequate staff and budget to meet the needs of the six top priorities. Mr. Coyle affirmed there would be. Ms. Muir clarified that the portion of the survey she had spoken to was a requirement of the Metro Plan and was to be conducted annually. Mr. Pap~ related that Commissioner Worrix of the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) and Lane Shetterly, department head of the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), were aware of the periodic review requirements and that staffing and funding requirements for such reviews were burdensome for all jurisdictions. He added, anecdotally, that the municipality of Brookings was twelve years into its periodic review and expected to work for three more years to complete it. Ms. Taylor favored the motion. She thought there were more urgent items the Planning Division should work on, such as item 41, which prioritized dealing with the Land Use Board of Appeals' remand of the City's Land Use Code Update (LUCU) concerning Goals 9 and 10 and the Chapter 6 tree provisions. She emphasized that this item was once at the top of the list and that it needed to be done. She expressed concern that the discussion referred to what Jack Roberts of the Metro Partnership wanted but did not refer to recommendations made by 1,000 Friends of Oregon. Ms. Bettman felt confused as she thought the council was to reprioritize specific issues that the council directed the organization to pursue. She asserted the list was de facto approval of all items listed. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 14, 2004 Page 2 Work Session