Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

was the first in a long sequence of Metro Plan amendments and it was important to engage the community early in the process. Ms. Gardner clarified that that there were public involvement activities associated with the Metro Plan amendment and also with the HB 3337 process. A citizen involvement plan for the HB 3337 would be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Zelenka commented that both Springfield and Eugene would use a 1.31 percent growth rate for developing their buildable land inventories. He asked how that rate could change. Ms. Gardner said policy choices could be made at the conclusion of the study regarding the provision of a 20-year supply of buildable land. She felt the safe harbor number would carry the City through the full analysis. Mr. Zelenka asked for the current range of average household size. Mr. Clark asked what impact Ms. Bettman’s motion would have on the proposed process. Ms. Gardner said she believed there were efficiencies to be gained by moving forward together on a Metro Plan amendment. She said the public process could be separate and as robust as the council wanted. She said the motion would mean the jurisdictions would go separately to the County, requiring the County to process two amendments, and the benefits of staff working together to prepare materials would be lost. Mr. Clark said he would not support the amendment because the original motion left all options on the table. Ms. Solomon said constituents expected jurisdictions to work in a coordinated manner when there was an opportunity to do so and it would behoove the council to take advantage of any efficiencies in a coordinated process. She felt Eugene’s values would be reflected in the process and the City could augment its part with additional public hearings and community input. She would not support the amendment. Ms. Bettman asked if staff would not work with Springfield if the amendment passed. Ms. Gardner said she understood the amendment meant staff from Eugene and Springfield would not be working together to prepare materials for the Metro Plan amendment. Ms. Bettman remarked that moving forward with the safe harbor approach limited the City’s options because it was committing to a population number for 2030. Ms. Gardner agreed, but pointed out that number would be revisited during the next periodic review. Ms. Bettman wanted the savings realized through a coordinated process quantified. She said if that could not be substantiated the staff could not claim to be saving money by moving forward with a coordinated approach. Mr. Ruiz said it was reasonable to expect that time and resources would be conserved by virtue of having staff work together on an amendment instead of working separately on two amendments, although it would be difficult to assign a specific value to the savings. Ms. Bettman commented that waiting until the County had made its decision was most efficient and the City was “jumping the gun” because if the County adopted coordinated population projections the City would not need to take a safe harbor approach. Ms. Gardner said there was benefit to the City initiating a Metro Plan amendment prior to the County taking action because if the County’s projections were appealed, the City could not move forward. If the City initiated its own safe harbor approach it was granted that number in six months. Ms. Jerome added it was a matter of timing. She said the real issue was whether the County chose an option that did not result in a coordinated population projection until it was too late for the City to comply with HB 3337. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 11, 2008 Page 5 Work Session