CC Minutes - 01/16/08 Work Session and Meeting of URA

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy asked why it was necessary to incur the cost of consultants instead of using existing staff. City Manager pro tem Jones responded that staff remained the first choice, but if the expertise was not available or there were time constraints on the project or capacity concerns, it might be necessary to use consultants. Ms. Bettman asserted that the recommended motion was a political strategy to show the City was working with Springfield and it violated the intent of HB 3337. She felt there were already many efforts that enhanced the City's relationship with Springfield. She said her interpretation of the bill was very different and there were two decision points for the UGB; the first step was to divide the UGB by the jurisdictional boundaries in the Metro Plan and the second was to conduct an inventory to determine the urbanizable lands. She said the bill included a provision that it superseded the goals and policies of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) with respect to those actions. She said if an inventory was conducted before a jurisdictional UGB was established it would be using Metro Plan provisions that were not consistent with State law. She thought that conducting an inventory first would violate State law and make the process more complicated. Mayor Piercy asked Ms. Jerome for her response. Ms. Jerome disagreed with Ms. Bettman's interpretation of the law. She stated that establishing a jurisdictional UGB and demonstrating that the comprehensive plan provided sufficient buildable lands within the UGB, as required by sections 2.a and 2.b of the bill, had to be done simultaneously because the demonstration had to occur when the UGB was drawn. She said the City was legally prohibited from drawing a UGB that did not satisfy Statewide Planning Goals. She said the bill preempted comprehensive plan provisions and intergovernmental agreements, but did not preempt Statewide Planning Goals or other statutes related to goal findings at the time of drawing a UGB; therefore, it was the City Attorney's opinion that sections 2.a and 2.b were simultaneous requirements. Mr. Pryor asked if the motion recommended in the AIS was consistent with State law. Ms. Jerome replied that each of options described in the AIS were consistent with the law. Mr. Pryor said that density versus size were the issues that arose and adjusting density requirements in a density only caused the issue of UGB expansion to be raised. He said if the City wanted to pursue a policy of not expanding the UGB that would then raise issues of density. He said the UGB and density were intimately connected and a discussion of those issues should be based on current, useful inventory information. Mr. Clark asked how long the information used to demonstrate sufficient buildable lands was viable. Ms. Jerome said statutes required the residential land study to show a 20-year supply based on data relating to land within the UGB that was collected since the last periodic review or five years, whichever was greater. Mr. Clark asked if the City Attorney agreed with Springfield's legal counsel that the legislative intent was for jurisdictions to take action on the determined information as soon as it was completed. Ms. Jerome said that Springfield's counsel had agreed with her analysis that there was no deadline for establishing the UGB and making the demonstration. She said the reference to immediate action was based on Springfield's intent to act quickly as the bill did not require immediate action. Mr. Zelenka commented that the issue appeared to be whether or not to conduct analyses of commercial and industrial lands in addition to the residential study required by the bill. He asked why the additional studies MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session