Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

City was trying to create policies, planning, or regulatory actions based on information that was not current or accurate, then it was out of alignment. He wanted policy documents to reflect what was “on the ground.” He did not wish to make plans based on land that was not available for use. He averred that the City had the capability to prepare inventories that were current and accurate and to maintain those inventories. Mr. Clark stressed that his motion had nothing to do with Ballot Measure 37 or an expansion of the urban growth boundary; rather, it was about being honest and accurate in regard to the land inventory. He wanted to have some consensus about the available land supply. Ms. Solomon observed that a lot of the acreage included in the commercial/industrial land supply was included in the West Eugene Wetlands and that some of it was in public ownership. She asked staff if the land was or should be available for development. Ms. Gardner was uncertain of the answer. She understood that the Metro Plan amendments had been completed to designate those lands correctly. Mr. Yeiter clarified that the rezoning had occurred. Ms. Gardner stated that whether the land should be redesignated was a policy decision and not a staff decision. Mr. Zelenka did not think the study could ever be completely up to date because it would require an ongoing expenditure to maintain the data. He agreed that the City should not assume that any public land should be taken out of the inventory. He asked when staff anticipated that the work would be finished. Ms. Gardner replied that work task #7 in the PDD work program was to prepare scoping on the buildable lands inventory. She said to do a study would require additional direction from the council. In response to a follow-up question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Gardner clarified that PDD currently had studies that were completed in various years for commercial, industrial, and residential lands so there was no ongoing effort or direction to do a study. She said this was the question before the council and if the council did want staff to undertake such an effort it would need to give the City Manager direction to initiate the process and it would need to identify the resources to accomplish it within the PDD work program. Ms. Ortiz thought the motion was broad. She could not comfortably support it. She believed that out of respect for the Planning Commission, the council should ask the commission when this project could be fit into the PDD work program. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the City Manager’s recommendation was to take no action. She assumed that this was based on the evaluation of the periodic review and the three inventories that were offered at the time that indicated the City had a 20-year land supply plus a surplus. She averred that the City was in compliance with State law. She said another study would cost a lot of money and take a lot of planning. She asserted that there were “factions in the community” who were not happy with the conclusions and wanted to start over with a new process. Ms. Taylor did not support the motion. She saw no urgency to having another land supply study. She reiterated her feeling that low-impact development was a higher priority. Mr. Clark commented that he had discussed the land use supply with Planning staff and the professional community who “worked in these fields” and he had heard that there was wide disagreement about the land supply. His motion intended to find a way to discuss the existing inventory and how to move forward intelligently and responsibly with it. He felt that the problems that existed in the Delta Highway/Beltline Highway area were due to poor planning in the Santa Clara area. He asserted that the City had not planned accurately and thoughtfully for that area. In an effort to be pro-active and responsible, he believed an honest, transparent discussion was necessary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 6 Work Session