Item C: Ordinance on Downtown Urban Renewal Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

analysis, and Eugene had done that through the Eugene Comprehensives Lands Assessment (ECLA), which provided demand numbers based on a 20-year population. Continuing, Ms. Jerome said the City must determine how much need it could accommodate within its current boundary based on current density regulations, and if was insufficient without changes to current regulations, it must look toward an expansion of the UGB. She said it appeared that Eugene would lack sufficient land to meet the 20-year demand, and suggested that it was likely the City would look at a combination of actions that included additional densification inside the current UGB as well as an expansion of the UGB. She said that Eugene had already done a great deal to encourage densification and she anticipated it would be more challenging for the commission to find new measures to increase density. However, staff was working on measures now. Ms. Jerome said that Envision Eugene was the community’s opportunity to decide how it wished to grow in the future and determine where expansion was necessary if that among the choices made. State law provided for the community to look at “efficiency measures” intended to increase densities, such as mandating small lots, providing for financial incentives, and allowing for changes in land use designations. She cautioned that the City must be able to demonstrate that the efficiency measures would work. She said many variables were involved, and some of the variables were quite technical. Ms. Jerome referred to the flow chart in the meeting packet, saying it would be triggered by the council’s acceptance of ECLA, and she could answer questions about it a future work session. Mr. Hledik asked if code changes would be needed. Ms. Jerome indicated it would depend on the efficiency measures that the City contemplated. For example, higher buildings to accommodate more density could require code amendments. Ms. Jerome said the City was in continual conversation with the State about what was necessary, and the process was evolving. Other Oregon communities, including Springfield and Bend, were going through the same process, and the City was following the processes in those communities for what it could learn. Mr. Randall asked if something like Walnut Station could have an impact on the amount of residential lands that were needed, if the community could assume the percentage of residential demand associated with the form-based code. Ms. Jerome suggested that Walnut Station could be considered an efficiency measure. Staff would quantify the impact and if it believed the MUC would increase overall densities, that would be accounted for. Mr. Hledik asked if opportunity siting could be a consideration in determining what direction the community went. Ms. Jerome said yes, depending on the timing involved Mr. Mills envisioned that opportunity siting was a potential efficiency measure, and he questioned how much of a number the City could assign to that given the criteria that must be addressed and the fact it must be lived with for 20 years. Ms. Gardner reiterated Ms. Jerome’s point that such measures could not be merely aspirational; their benefit must be demonstrated. She did not think the City could assign densities that were incompatible with the work it had done. She said the work would be challenging. Mr. Belcher asked what one did with a plan for mixed use centers but only a few had been implemented; did that force the council to establish those centers? Ms. Gardner observed that the City had been in recent discussion with the State on the topic and said she would get back to the commission with the results of that MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission March 29, 2010 Page 7