CC Minutes - 05/28/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Springfield area was doing more than others were. He requested a jurisdictional comparison of effort and cost. Mr. Meisner asked about the cumulative effect of the City's various planning efforts on the buildable lands inventory. He asked if the net outcome of the study would be a recommendation that the UGB be expanded. He asked for a sense of the coordination between various planning efforts such as the storm water and natural resources planning efforts. Mr. Bj0rklund indicated that coordination was occurring. Mr. Meisner wished that the agenda materials had stated that fact. Mr. Kelly commended the packet materials, saying that they answered his questions. Mr. Kelly emphasized the lapse in the process had been caused by delays from other jurisdictions. During the time of those delays, no money had been spent. He believed that there might be a potential impact on the UGB and not all land could be protected. However, he pointed out that nothing being contemplated at this stage of the process demanded that anything be protected. Mr. Kelly believed that was the main focus of public confusion. The inventory simply stated that a site had sufficient significance to be studied further. Mr. Kelly said that the process made him think of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, during which wetlands were identified and then reviewed on a parcel-by-parcel basis so balance and predictability were achieved. He said that the analysis would look at many factors, including the impact of protecting sites on the buildable lands inventory. Ms. Solomon expressed concern about the time that had been spent on the Goal 5 inventory and the time needed to complete the process. She did not think that the process could be completed in the time suggested by staff. In the meantime, there was considerable uncertainty and community anxiety, as reflected in the testimony. There was concern about how the properties in the inventory were identified given the age of the aerial photographs used. Ms. Solomon noted that there were about 6,000 tax lots involved in the inventory, which she found staggering. She said that the next opportunity for public input would not be until the end of the process, during which time the public would have to wait. Ms. Solomon thought that was unfair. She believed that there were parallel planning efforts occurring that tied up land, citing the Goal 5 inventory and parks and open space planning efforts, and called for better coordination between those efforts. Ms. Solomon acknowledged the Goal 5 inventory was part of the State-mandated periodic review and asked what projects were on hold until the review was completed. Ms. Solomon believed the City must be prepared to purchase land devalued by the process, and the City did not have that kind of money in the budget. Ms. Solomon advocated for use of the safe harbor approach. She said that the City needed to prioritize its expenditures, and she preferred to spend money on the Land Use Code Update and nodal development planning rather than the standard inventory process. Ms. Taylor recalled that the council had a discussion of the two approaches and a council majority decided on the standard inventory approach. She determined from Mr. Bj0rklund that Springfield had not yet decided which process to use, and that Lane County had agreed to use the safe harbor approach. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 28, 2003 Page 3 Work Session