CC Minutes - 12/09/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Piercy noted that the ECLA work was responding to a legislative mandate that Eugene and Springfield establish separate urban growth boundaries. She asked for a summary of Springfield’s progress. Ms. Gardner replied that the results of Springfield’s land study changed based on correction of an error in the slope assignment of buildable and non-buildable land. That changed the result from a need to a surplus of residential land. She understood that the Springfield City Council had accepted the revised result. Mr. Dedrick added that Springfield’s data problems had prompted Eugene to closely examine its own calcula- tions to assure their accuracy. He said it underscored the need for the extensive amount of data generated by ECLA to be reviewed by as many people as possible. City Attorney Emily Jerome said that Springfield’s resolution, like Eugene’s, was intended to address HB 3337 and therefore specific to residential land need. She said the council had provisionally adopted a non- final preliminary step with respect to housing only. Mr. Zelenka pointed out that the range of 1,500 to 3,000 acres was referenced in the agenda item summary, but not in the resolution or Exhibit A and associated reports. Ms. Jerome said the range applied to all three types of land and she had some concern about adopting it because the resolution only addressed residential land. She said that Section 1 of the resolution specified it was adopting the draft inventory of buildable land supply and determination of housing capacity and there were portions of the attachments related to public, commercial and industrial land that were not being accepted as part of the resolution. She said the resolution also acknowledged in Recital D the additional work that would be done on the documents. Mr. Zelenka said that adopting a range would avoid the conflict that came with adopting a number. He was concerned that adopting a number, even though it was draft, would be taken out of context. Mr. Clark commented that there had not been an agreement by the council to accept a range. He asked why commercial and industrial land needs were not being accepted simultaneously, as the council had decided to inventory those lands along with residential land. Ms. Gardner said as a result of the council’s October work session, there was direction to develop a preliminary draft that would be accepted for purposes of meeting the requirements of HB 3337, with acknowledgement that the period January through April 2010, would be spent addressing technical and methodology issues and producing results for all land types. By addressing the legal requirements of HB 3337 now, the remainder of ECLA became a local process. She noted that Portland Metro had adopted a range for its housing need. Ms. Taylor was concerned that ECLA estimates did not consider under-developed land, the trend toward multi-unit housing, the prospect of changing policies, or growth in outlying smaller communities rather than expansion of Eugene. She questioned why the council was required to adopt the resolution by the end of the year, and was hesitant to vote in favor. Ms. Jerome explained that by law the City was required to complete certain steps by the end of 2009, and that achievement was being documented through adoption of the resolution, rather than an ordinance. She emphasized that the adoption was only of the resolution, which was clear that specific numbers were not being adopted at this time. Mr. Pryor remarked that the City was legally bound to have a product by the end of 2009, and the resolution was accepting a product that was crafted with the intent of being revised and updated in the future. He felt it was appropriate for the council to accept only what was necessary to meet the requirements of HB 3337 and continue to pursue final numbers. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 9, 2009 Page 2 Work Session