Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark inquired about the legal status of any lands study the City would conduct. Ms. Jerome replied that would be up to the council. At the time of the analysis and determination, there would be background information with which the council could do as it wanted. Depending on results of the analysis and assessment, options would be presented to the council. Until those options were taken, they were simply findings for future action. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Jerome said the statutes that governed the studies allowed cities to use data that was gathered since the last periodic review. When conducting a study shortly after periodic review, the statute required going back five years. At the time of periodic review, jurisdictions were required to demonstrate compliance with regulations showing a 20-year supply of land was available in each of the categories. DLCD could be concerned with the age of the data, but statutorily, jurisdictions were permitted to use data gathered since the last periodic review. Mr. Clark asked if the statute did not compel the City of Eugene to adjust its code or policies, but simply required the City to study the issue, what would Eugene be required to do after the City of Springfield established its UGB. He opined until the City of Eugene completed its own residential, commercial and industrial land studies it would be relying on the “old” adopted, acknowledged studies under Goal 10. Until the City of Eugene completed its own studies, it would be relying on 1999 studies that included land in Springfield, to say there was enough land in the UGB, although Springfield would be operating under its own studies. Mr. Clark asked what the legal ramifications for the City of Eugene would or could be for leaning on data that included land in Springfield when the City of Springfield was already acting independently. Ms. Jerome said the laws clearly indicated that every jurisdiction needed to rely on an existing, adopted, and DLCD- acknowledged plan. Until invalidated by the City Council or until time ran out, that was the 1999 Residential Lands Study, which geographically included Springfield land. If Springfield took actions to remove residential lands that the City of Eugene relied on, just as they could do now, the City of Eugene would need to continue to track that information. Although this presented a unique situation, it was defensible. Ms. Bettman understood Springfield lacked residential land in comparison to Eugene because Springfield had built at low densities compared to Eugene. She thought if done right, refinement plans could be a high priority, but she did not believe that had been demonstrated in the past. She had repeatedly raised the issue of updating refinement plans on an area specific basis in each neighborhood. Responding to questions from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Gardner said the MUC concept was a high priority for which resources had been allocated. She added it was not limited to new development, but rather embedded in infill compatibility, opportunity siting and transportation corridor planning, which could be applied to th other transportation corridors, such as West 11 Avenue. The MUC concept acknowledged that commercial development and redevelopment was a critical component of a thriving MUC that included commercial, residential and transit, at the very least. Ms. Bettman claimed the concept had been generalized to the point where it was an “instrument of destruction” rather achieving the original objectives. Mr. Zelenka asked if staff could provide a memorandum indicating which of the growth management policies had been incorporated into code, and which ones had not; and of those not yet incorporated, what was the timeline for doing so. He understood that it was important for the appearance of buildings to relate MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 3 Work Session