Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Piercy said questions had been raised about the location of industrial land and whether changes in land designations were necessary. Mr. Dedrick agreed that one approach to looking at land need was to examine the current land designations, particularly commercial and industrial land. Mr. Pryor appreciated the baseline figures that would be moved forward to inform Envision Eugene. He recalled the neighborhood character discussions that affirmed envisioning the community related to more than just an acreage count. He was encouraged with ECLA as an incremental step toward the envisioning process. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Dedrick said the base employment forecast was adjusted downward to account for jobs lost in the community. Mr. Zelenka said it was appropriate for Envision Eugene to take a "reduce, reuse and recycle" approach to land in the community. Ms. Taylor asked if the current growth management policies would be replaced as a result of Envision Eugene. Ms. Gardner said there would be an opportunity to add new policies that addressed land use efficiencies. Mr. Ruiz assured the council there was no intent to change current growth management policies, only consider whether new policies were needed to avoid the need to expand the urban growth boundary (UGB). Ms. Taylor asked if ECLA had considered the trend toward telecommuting. She also commented that vacant and underutilized commercial land existed throughout the community. Mr. Dedrick said telecommuting was factored into ECLA assumptions regarding land need. He said there were 98 acres of vacant commercial land, primarily in smaller parcels; ECLA did not extensively analyze the issue of underutilized commercial land as that was a somewhat subjective assessment, but allowed for some redevelopment of currently developed commercial land. Ms. Taylor preferred the corrected motion, which removed the word “basis” and simply indicated ECLA data would be used in the Envision Eugene process. She noted a similar language change was needed in the ordinance. Ms. Ortiz asked if ECLA had considered the 360 acres of the railroad yard. Mr. Dedrick said that land had been an early consideration, but the railroad had been unable to give any type of assurance that the land would be available during the 20-year planning period. The land was currently listed as committed to another use and unavailable for development. Mr. Clark said the CAC’s drainage-way findings indicated that the results of Public Works tasks would be taken into account if and when they were available, but that meant if the work was not completed the inability to build on those lands would never be considered. Ms. Jerome replied that any land use action had to include findings. If land in the inventory was rendered unbuildable by the regulations Public Work developed, that would be deducted from the land supply. She said any land removed from the buildable lands inventory had to be replaced under State law. Mr. Clark disagreed with the CAC’s findings related to transportation, specifically the second recommendation under Item 7, Traffic Impact Analysis/Transportation Planning Rule. He said an assessment of Beltline by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) two years ago, indicated that it was a failing facility in terms of its capacity. He questioned how vacant property in North Eugene could be MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2010 Page 3 Work Session