Laserfiche WebLink
Highway area were due to poor planning in the Santa Clara area. He asserted that the City had not planned <br />accurately and thoughtfully for that area. In an effort to be pro-active and responsible, he believed an <br />honest, transparent discussion was necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor asked if the City had current and accurate information regarding the commercial, industrial, and <br />residential lands at present. Ms. Gardner responded that, though the City met State requirements, the <br />information was dated. She said the residential land inventory was more recent, but the commercial and <br />industrial lands inventory had been conducted in 1999. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor thought it was essential to know the current land inventory. He did not want to commit to a <br />certain development path; he just wanted to ensure the information was complete. He did not think saying <br />“we do not really need it” was enough. He averred that in order to govern the City, the council needed <br />current and accurate information. He disagreed with the assertion that it would be expensive to undertake a <br />current inventory, adding that he would be interested in hearing ways it could be conducted within existing <br />resources. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy observed that the inventory was an iterative process. She felt it would be costly to maintain <br />up-to-date data. She noted that the State only required the inventory to be conducted every ten years. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner stated that the inventories themselves did not present a technological challenge. She said the <br />challenge lay in the interface in terms of data, which was separate from whether or not the City reentered a <br />periodic review and were required to do an inventory or chose to do an inventory. She noted that the <br />Commercial/Industrial Buildable Lands (CIBL) reports had outlined the complexities of the data challenges <br />and the costs. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome said the discussion regarding when the next periodic review should occur was important, but it <br />was also important not to lose sight of the expiration dates of the land supplies studies which would likely <br />come before the next periodic review. She noted that the residential lands study would expire in 2015 and <br />the commercial and industrial land studies would expire in 2010. She stated that whether or not the City <br />would be in periodic review at that time for DLCD to be checking on the City’s status was uncertain. She <br />averred the City would at that time be at risk of being told by others, such as the Land Use Board of <br />Appeals, it was out of compliance. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka reiterated that this item was not on the work plans and the City Manager recommended taking <br />no action. He observed that every time a study was completed it was dated and out of compliance, unless <br />the City could change to a “completely dynamic system.” He noted that the existing studies concluded that <br />there was a 20-year land supply. He did not believe it was a wise use of staff time to pursue another land <br />use study or an ongoing one. He wanted to see the redevelopment of land that was now being underutilized <br />before any new supplies of land were sought outside of the UGB. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy called for the vote. The vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Pryor, Clark, Poling, and <br />Solomon voting in favor; councilors Bettman, Ortiz, Taylor, and Zelenka voting in opposition. <br />Mayor Piercy voted in opposition of the motion and the motion failed. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor requested a memorandum from staff to address whether it would be feasible to conduct an <br />inventory. Planning and Development Department Director, Susan Muir, said it could be done as a council <br />assignment. She stated that it could explain some of the advancements that the department had in <br />technology. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />