Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Jones said it was up to the City Council to determine the <br />Planning Commission work priorities. Recognizing there was insufficient time to get through all of the <br />Council’s policy issues today, she suggested scheduling additional work sessions as the council deemed <br />necessary. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy suggested that the council consider accepting the Annual Report and scheduling a work <br />session in a timely manner to study the policy issues that needed more consideration by the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman offered several examples of instances when the City Council accepted a report because it <br />could not approve everything in it, and then it was later “sold” as having council approval. She was <br />reluctant to approve the report today and appreciated Ms. Jones’ willingness to schedule a work session. <br />Several issues needed further study. She expressed surprise about the staff recommendation to conduct an <br />available lands assessment when the City Council had specifically voted not to pursue a commercial lands <br />study. She supported doing the minimum necessary to be in compliance with State law. While the City <br />was looking at ways to accommodate residential growth within the UGB, it was not considering strategies <br />to increase the capacity for commercial and industrial lands. The council recently reduced the capacity for <br />commercial lands by lowering Floor Area Ration (FAR) and changing the use on commercial properties. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner explained the Planning Commission’s recommendation to complete a comprehensive lands <br />assessment would need the approval of the City Council. The Planning Commission was currently <br />implementing MUCs, as well as studying corridor planning and form based code strategies. Segregating <br />commercial, industrial, and residential land supply did not offer the best opportunity to complete integrated <br />land use planning. A form-based code looked at the form of the development rather than land use <br />designation. Conducting a capacity assessment for an area such as West 11th Avenue had little regard for <br />the land use designation. But, identifying commercial and industrial needs could provide opportunities for <br />future redevelopment of a corridor that could be mixed residential/commercial. <br /> <br />Mr. Carroll asserted the issue was inextricably linked to the buildable land supply. However, the Planning <br />Commission needed this tool to enable it to make intelligent recommendations to the City Council. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Jones said no decision had been made regarding a joint <br />meeting with the City of Springfield. However, a letter had been received from the Lane Board of County <br />Commissioners requesting a joint elected officials meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked who had decided not to cooperate, asserting it was not the Eugene City Council but <br />rather its neighbors. She said a two-hour work session was needed. Ms. Taylor asked what would happen <br />if the City of Eugene did not comply with the adopted legislation within two years. Ms. Jerome stated she <br />did not know what enforcement action would be taken. She iterated the need for the council to discuss HB <br />3337 in the context of the Planning Commission work program. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she was “suspicious” and “it was dangerous” to accept, but not approve, the Planning <br />Commission FY08 work program. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated he was willing to approve the Planning Commission FY08 work program today. The <br />Planning Commission had a great deal of work to do and the City Council should let it get going. <br />Responding to Ms. Taylor’s comment, he said the Eugene City Council had been very clear that it did not <br />want to work with the City of Springfield. The Springfield City Council had been clear in asking the <br />Eugene City Council to work with it. HB Bill 3337 was not imposed on the City of Eugene by the City of <br />Springfield but rather by the Oregon State Legislature in a nearly unanimous vote in both houses, because <br />of the City of Eugene’s reluctance to do what the spirit of the law suggested. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Clark about whether HB 3337 required the City of Eugene to do a <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 24, 2007 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />