Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 07/14/03 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room-City Hall July 14, 2003 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Gary PapS, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. In the absence of Mayor Jim Torrey, Council President Gary Pap8 called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. A. Items from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Ms. Taylor said she was hearing a great deal from constituents about cats and called for a council discussion of licensing cats. Ms. Bettman congratulated the Friendly Area Neighbors for its use of a neighborhood matching grant to highlight the businesses on South Willamette Street. She regretted that neighborhood matching grants were no longer available. Ms. Bettman highlighted a fund-raising drive organized by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to rehabilitate the Veterans Building. They required $180,000 to do so. She believed the effort was positive for the veterans as well as the community as the veterans intended to make the building available for community events. Ms. Bettman said that there would be an appreciation event for the Eugene Police Department's senior volunteers at 2nd Avenue and Chambers Street on July 16 at 4 p.m. Ms. Bettman noted her information request regarding what the council needed to do if it wanted to identify the gaps in terms of needed housing and how it might reach a definition of needed housing. Ms. Bettman noted the council's receipt of a memorandum from Planning and Development Department Tom Coyle regarding the Fall 2003 Land Use Code Update (LUCU) amendments and Mr. Coyle's intent to seek a broader range of community input. She noted that she had talked to neighborhood leaders about the issue, and they had heard nothing. She requested the status of that effort. Mr. Meisner said that Lane County had established an animal regulation task force, and he requested a progress report on that effort and the task force's recommendations for long-term solutions. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Solomon arrived. Mr. Poling said that he had walked by the new Northside School site that morning and viewed the equipment being prepared for the construction that was to commence the next morning. Mr. Kelly recalled the council's General Fund and Community Development Block Grant contributions to the Planned Child Center. Because of funding problems, that project would not go forward. He requested a staff memorandum indicating that the funding was being returned to its initial sources. Ms. Solomon had no items. Mr. Pap~ said that he recently visited the new city hall in Boise, Idaho and had been impressed with its accessibility and appearance. He hoped that Eugene could have a new city hall soon. Mr. Pap~ congratulated the manager on his memorandum regarding his recommendations for a council goals session and hoped the council proceeded as outlined. City Manager Dennis Taylor had no items. B.WORK SESSION: Annual Joint Meeting with the Eugene Planning Commission The council was joined by Eugene Planning Commissioners Adell McMillan, Charles Rusch, Ann Marie Levis, Jon Belcher, Mitzi Colbath, and Richard Duncan. Commission President McMillan called the council's attention to the commission's annual report, and highlighted completed items. Ms. McMillan called the council's attention to the proposed draft work program for fiscal year 2004. She said that the work program was very full, and consisted mainly of items that the council had asked the commission to do. She highlighted several work plan items, including revision of the nodal development overlay zone standard, site-specific nodal planning, completion of periodic review and the Downtown Plan, and the High-Density Infill Examples and Education Project. Ms. McMillan drew the council's attention to the work program of the Historic Review Board, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. She said that the work program was very similar to past years. This year the board did not request project funding. It recently completed the Modern Context Statement and she anticipated that mostly routine work would occur in the coming year. Ms. Levis discussed several commission recommendations for process improvements. She said that among its objectives, the commission was seeking better communication with the council. She said that the commission agreed that in addition to staff memorandums to the council, the commission would take the initiative to write its own memorandums explaining its positions. She commended the work done by staff but said the commission was seeking to give the council a feel of its discussion. The commission also proposed to have a commission representative present at council meetings to serve as a resource when commission recommendations were discussed. She said that the last recommendation was for each commissioner to adopt a councilor. Each commissioner would select one or two councilors with whom to keep in touch on various issues. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 2 Work Session Ms. Levis suggested that the council provide the commission president with more than three minutes for explanation of the commission's position when major issues were discussed. She recalled that, in the past, there were many occasions where a commissioner had been present at the meeting to answer questions in the same way as staff, and the commission proposed to revive that tradition. Mr. Rusch read a statement regarding the Natural Resources Study. He said that it was a personal statement, but the commission had supported its recitation. Mr. Rusch's letter advocated for the council's adoption of the standard approach to the uplands sites in the Natural Resource Study Inventory, rather than the safe harbor approach that the council had tentatively directed staff to implement. Mr. Belcher acknowledged the fiscal issues that led the council to consider adoption of the safe harbor approach but urged the council to adopt the inventory recommended to it by the commission and to consider the safe harbor approach when the City reached the Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy (EESE) analysis stage. Mr. Belcher believed that the commission's presence at work sessions would facilitate communication between the two bodies. Mr. Belcher thanked the council for the opportunity to work on the residential infill study and believed that the result would be a win-win situation for all. He said that the City needed to determine how the community would grow, and he did not think there was an answer to that yet. Ms. Colbath read a statement conveying her hopes that the City recognized the need for balance and the connections between things. She called for caution in the application of tax incentives. She advocated for support of education and affordable homeownership, the latter particularly on the periphery of downtown. Ms. Colbath also advocated for support of the environment as an economic driver for tourism and for continued support of agriculture. She called for forthright dialogue and decision-making that recognized the interdependence of many factors. She called for independent and adequate information to support decision-making, community involvement in decision-making, and an evaluation of the decisions that were made. She supported regional planning. Mr. Duncan thanked the council for appointing him to the commission. He said he found the commission's work both challenging and enjoyable. He said that the residential infill study was of importance to him. He recalled that the Growth Management Study (GMS) results had indicated that the community had an interest in vertical growth, but the commission was finding not-in-my- neighborhood opposition to that throughout the community. He said that the subcommittee working on the infill study had begun to formulate ideas to help people to realize that infill was not a bad thing, and that housing could be intensified in already developed areas. Mr. Duncan said that it was his hope the work led to more redevelopment of the community's many aging industrial and commercial properties. He said that one of his concerns was based on his involvement in the Region 2050 study, which indicated there would be considerable pressure on the community in terms of population growth. He shared Mr. Rusch's interest in long-range planning and said the commission would take a look at where Eugene would be in 20-40 years. He thought such an examination was due. Mr. Pap~ solicited council question and comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Kelly thanked the commission for the high-quality work it did over the past year. He appreciated the time the commission took to deliberate key issues. He endorsed the recommendations set forth by Ms. Levis, and observed that sometimes the council got a good idea of the commission's deliberation from the minutes, but outside delving into the minutes the council sometimes did not know the commission's reasoning. He favored the suggestion for a memorandum from the commission for that reason and thought having a commissioner present at council work sessions would be useful. Mr. Kelly noted his concurrence with Mr. Rusch's remarks regarding the council's direction to staff about the safe harbor approach but said he did not expect any change, which he considered short-sighted. He expressed appreciation for Mr. Belcher's suggestion that the council adopt the inventory and reduce the analysis level. Referring to the work program, Mr. Kelly noted the funding allocated for site-specific nodal work and the land use code amendments, but the schedule indicated nothing about site-specific nodal planning. He asked what in the work plan addressed that funding. Planning Director Jan Childs indicated that it was omitted as the result of an oversight. She anticipated that the work would touch both the first and second half of the years, with work commencing in the fall and the bulk occurring after the first of the new year. Mr. Meisner thought the recommendations very useful and endorsed the idea of a commission memorandum. Speaking to the suggestion for an "adopt the councilor" he recalled that the Human Rights Commission had suggested the same approach at one time, but that effort had not lasted. He encouraged the commissioners to keep after the idea if they decided to implement it. Mr. Meisner emphasized the importance of long-range planning and said that the GMS did Eugene little good if other communities nearby ignored the policies that were adopted by Eugene or adopted policies that were odds with Eugene's policies. He noted that the commission often had joint meetings on specific topics with the Lane County and Springfield planning commissions, and he wished that the commissions had more joint meetings about how the jurisdictions approached regional planning within the context of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to ask such questions as what was being done, and how it could be done in a better way. Speaking to the commission's effort on City policies related to infill and redevelopment, Mr. Meisner said he was excited about the effort and hopeful about its results. He said that resistance to infill had been universal throughout the city. He said that he had previously been optimistic about nodes but the community opposition had been massive and came in some cases from unexpected sources. Ms. Bettman said the work program was very ambitious and she thanked the commission for its willingness to do the work needed. She asked how the issues formerly addressed by the now disbanded Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) were to be addressed in the future. Ms. Childs indicated the CIC's work would be added to the commission's work program item, noting the work program was drafted before the Budget Committee decided against funding staff support for the CIC. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman supported the process objectives outlined by Ms. Levis. She thought that having a commissioner at the table was a good idea, and wanted to ensure that the commissioner present represented the entire commission. Speaking to the issue of infill and design, Ms. Bettman disagreed with the contention that people did not want density in their neighborhoods. She believed that residents wanted design that was compatible with the neighborhood and that the council had eliminated the mitigating elements that could have made such density more palatable to neighborhoods, such as pocket parks, narrow streets, and wide sidewalks, because they were regulatory in nature. Ms. Bettman said that when the Land Use Measures Task Force discussed density, it discussed it in combination with those mitigating factors. She said that as long as the City was "cramming density down people's throats" without compatibility, it would meet resistance. Ms. Taylor thanked Mr. Rusch for his statements and said she hoped the council could reconsider its direction to staff as it regarded the upland sites in the inventory. She believed it would be good if commissioners were present and said she had appreciated having the minutes to review when a controversial item came up. She said she would appreciate an explanation of the two points of view and having a commissioner present to explain even one no vote would be useful. Mr. Poling thanked the commissioners for their work. He said that reading the commission's minutes had been a real learning experience for him. He said that a memorandum reviewing the commission's discussion and the thought process that had gone into its decisions would be useful. Mr. Poling welcomed any commissioner who wished to adopt him. He said that he had met Mr. Belcher for coffee once and learned a great deal. Mr. Poling said that while he appreciated the commission's work, the councilors were the elected officials who had to make the final decision on policy. He took into account all information from the commission as well as the input he received from staff and the community. Ms. Solomon said that several commissioners had reached out to her and she appreciated that outreach. She looked forward to working with the commission in the future. Mr. Pap~ thanked the commission for all the work that it did. He appreciated the commission's deliberations and the time it took to reach a decision. Mr. Pap~ thought that the Planning Commission Plus Three had been a very good process and questioned why there were no councilors on the commission, given that there were councilors on other bodies such as the Police Commission and the Human Rights Commission. Mr. Pap~ called for a second round of comments. Mr. Kelly found it sad that the commission's heavy work load and continued staff reductions made it impossible for the commission to take on the three highest priority post-LUCU work program items: the South Hills Study update, the alternate code path, and asset mapping for selective intensification of use. He thought all three items would have made a difference in the long-term. Mr. Kelly requested an update on the progress of the LUBA remand work on LUCU and the estimated time line for completion of the remaining items. Ms. Childs responded that staff had been overly optimistic in its previous estimates. The needed ordinances will take longer to prepare than originally anticipated. In the case of the needed housing ordinance, the council had MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 5 Work Session returned the ordinance to the commission for further work. The remaining items that had been remanded were largely dependent on the completion of the Natural Resource Study as well as the ESEE analysis and needed protection measures. That was why there was no additional remand ordinance work on the work program in fiscal year 2004. Ms. Childs said that, realistically, the inventory and protection measures would not be done in time to bring the remaining remand issues back to the council in the next fiscal year. Mr. Meisner regretted the upcoming retirement of Ms. Childs and wished her luck in the future. He appreciated her ability to serve as a resource to the council and the brevity of her responses to council questions. Mr. Meisner asked Mr. Coyle to speak to the department's loss of staff, skill, history, and knowledge, saying that loss would make the commission's job more difficult. Regarding the LUCU, Mr. Meisner asked what the commission would do differently if it had the opportunity to do the process again. He asked how the commission felt about the LUCU and what the council had asked it to do with the LUCU. He requested a response in writing if possible. Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Meisner's regret about Ms. Childs' retirement. Ms. Bettman expressed enthusiasm about the commission's residential infill project and hoped to see some results soon. She hoped that the recommendations included some of the mitigating strategies she had mentioned earlier. She said that they were called for in the GMS policies but apparently that was not enough for staff to implement them. Ms. Bettman suggested that the commission might want to consider initiating some amendments to the LUCU that allowed the City to "add a little sugar with the medicine." Recalling the visual preference survey done in conjunction with the TransPlan update, Ms. Bettman said that it got to the heart of how density could be livable. She said that when the City Council discussed density, it backed away when the discussion concerned commercial development. If the City was going to require residents to densify, it needed to require other uses to densify as well. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Solomon, moved to approve the fiscal year 2004 Planning Commission work program, including the fiscal year Historic Review Board work program. Ms. Levis suggested that the commission brainstorm responses to Mr. Meisner's question about the LUCU. She also asked that the council indicate if it wanted the commission to take on its recommended process objectives. Mr. Kelly determined that Ms. Taylor and Ms. Solomon would accept as a friendly amendment the addition of a phrase "and pursue the suggested process objectives." Ms. Bettman noted that the work program omitted mention of the Planning Commission role in the selection of the new Planning Director. Ms. Colbath noted that Mr. Coyle had indicated to the commission that the selection of a new director was his task and that for the commission to take a major role would be at odds with the City Manager form of government. The commission was awaiting to see if there were any opportunities that arose that members could take advantage of to provide input. Ms. Bettman asked what the City's policy was in regard to the issue, noting the Police Commission's input in the desired characteristics of a new police chief. City Manager Taylor indicated he would follow up with a memorandum. He said that there were legal MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 6 Work Session ramifications to the topic that would inform the discussion. Mr. Coyle reiterated that staff had been advised by legal counsel that there were legal issues related to the commission's participation, and it was not solely an issue of ownership. Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Taylor recalled that the Police Commission had provided input into the police chief search through the outreach sessions held with the public and was not involved in the recruitment process itself. Mr. Kelly suggested that the Planning Commission could provide similar input regarding attributes, competencies, etc. City Manager Taylor concurred. He encouraged the commission to find the time to provide similar input to the Planning and Development Department director. Mr. Pap8 recognized the effort of former Planning Commissioner Art Farley and that of Commissioner John Lawless, who was unable to be present tonight. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Mr. Pap8 called a brief meeting recess. C.WORK SESSION: Lane Metro Partnership Presentation on Industrial, Commercial, and Residential Lands Inventory The council was joined for the item by Lane Metro Partnership Board President John Arnold and Executive Director Jack Roberts. Mr. Arnold thanked the council for the opportunity to speak to the issues raised in Mr. Roberts' letter to the council dated May 30, 2003. He also thanked the council for its contribution to the Metro Partnership and expressed appreciation for Mr. Kelly's input and hard work as a member of the board. Mr. Arnold presented background information on the partnership's goals and mission, which was to bring business investment to the community with the goal of diversifying and fostering the economy and increasing the local tax base. He said that the partnership assisted both local businesses wishing to expand, and businesses from outside the community wishing to relocate in Eugene. Mr. Arnold noted the existing poor economic conditions that existed throughout the country, and said that the partnership wished to be in a position to assist the community when conditions improved. Mr. Arnold said that the board held several sessions on the issue of the community's buildable lands. He shared some information that the board learned at those sessions regarding the community's supply of buildable commercial and industrial lands. He noted that the information was based on information provided to the partnership from consultants Dick Sheehy and Richard Duncan of Duncan and Brown. Mr. Arnold emphasized that those communities that were exceeding in economic development were those with "ready-to-go sites" available when a business was ready to expand or come to the community. He said that Mr. Sheehy recommended that the community plan ahead for such sites using existing State land use law because "time was of the essence." Continuing, Mr. Arnold said that Richard Duncan of Duncan and Brown provided information to the partnership's board regarding the adequacy of commercial and industrial lands in Eugene. Mr. Duncan had determined that the existing supply of such lands was not adequate at the current time, and had attributed that to the fact that some lands designated as available may have other MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 7 Work Session constraints, such as natural resources or a lack of access, as well as to the rate of land use absorption during the 1990s, which exceeded the projected rate of use. Mr. Duncan's findings indicated that Eugene had a greater shortage of commercial land than of industrial land. Mr. Arnold noted John Tamulonis of the City of Springfield presented information to the board indicating that there was a substantial supply of industrial land in that community, although not all was immediately available. However, Springfield was short of commercial lands. Mr. Roberts noted his membership on the Governor's Industrial Lands Task Force, which was examining the issue of the industrial lands supply on a statewide basis. Four metropolitan areas in the state had identified problems with their land supply. The remainder of the state had the same problem as the rural areas of Lane County; there was plenty of land, but no services or infrastructure to serve them, and no demand for their development. He discussed the different approaches taken by Portland, Salem, and Bend to addressing their land supply problems. The fourth community, Eugene-Springfield, had taken no steps to address its land supply issue. Mr. Roberts said that the task force had expected that the testimony it received would identify impediments to the land use system as an obstacle to maintaining an adequate land supply, but that was not the case. Most of the problems that were encountered were the results of the community's failure to use the land use system appropriately. He believed the task force would recommend that all jurisdictions do an inventory of their buildable lands and address any shortfall in the supply within the parameters of existing law. Mr. Roberts outlined a recommendation from the Metro Partnership for the City's support for commencing a process to evaluate whether the Eugene-Springfield area currently had an adequate supply of industrial and commercial land. That process would involve a consultant. Mr. Roberts suggested that such an evaluation was a way for the community to 'get ahead of the curve.' He said that he had consulted with Terry Moore of EcoNorthwest regarding the work to be done, and Mr. Moore had indicated it would not be a major undertaking, and that the effort would likely cost less than $50,000. Mr. Roberts asked that the council consider funding a portion of a consultant's work. He said that the partnership was meeting with the Eugene and Springfield councils and the Lane County Board of County Commissioners to see if there was interest in making the evaluation happen. He was hoping to see the three bodies take positive action on the request in September 2003 so the elected officials could determine locally how best to meet the requirements of the law and the needs of the community and economy. Mr. Pap~ invited council questions. Mr. Meisner said that it was difficult for him to consider the issue of land supply without also considering the broader questions of industries and jobs. He said that he frequently saw underused industrial land in the community, or sites zoned industrial and occupied with a retail store and where people lived as well. He asked if the evaluation proposed to look at both supply and use. Mr. Meisner said that the economy was changing. He asked if, in the context of looking at its land supply, the community also needed to look at its definition and lists of industrial uses. He asked if the community was putting the right uses into its industrial zones, or would it merely increase the land supply and see that squandered. Mr. Meisner asked if the City's basic zones-residential, commercial, and industrial-were still correct, and how their use was related to their availability. He noted that many of the uses in the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 8 Work Session Whiteaker mixed-use zone were industrial uses, and asked if those were appropriate and how it was counted in terms of categories in the land supply. Regarding the issue of commercial densities, Mr. Meisner questioned whether the community was wasting its resources and asked how the community could ensure that it was a good steward of that supply of land. Mr. Meisner recalled the interest he had expressed in the past in using tax money to prepare brownfields for redevelopment so that land was once again available for development. Mr. Kelly indicated interest in knowing the answers to the questions raised by Mr. Meisner. He said he had supported forwarding Mr. Roberts' letter to the local jurisdictions because the letter proposed to address what was clearly a need in a comprehensive way. However, Mr. Kelly thought it would be premature for the council to act to fund the request without more definition of the scope of work and what questions should be answered in the evaluation. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation that the letter mentioned the potential of private fund-raising. He noted the council's earlier discussion with the commission, during which a recurring theme was the lack of resources needed to accomplish what was desired. Mr. Kelly suggested that the three jurisdictions work collaboratively to determine what questions they wanted to have answered, and let that effort evolve toward a proposal. Ms. Bettman thought it inappropriate for the council to take any action at this time, given that the item was scheduled as a work session and the time scheduled for the presentation did not leave much time for council discussion. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the level of private funding received by the partnership, Mr. Roberts anticipated that the partnership would receive $100,000 in fiscal year 2004. He added that fund-raising had been down considerably in fiscal year 2003 because the organization lacked an executive director much of the year. Ms. Bettman said the community had met all the State's requirements related to land supply and she questioned why the community would want to redo a task that had already been done. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the role of the partnership as it related to City policy making. She said she had read the Intergovernmental Agreement between the partnership and the City. She viewed the proposal as advocating policy rather than fulfilling the partnership's contractual obligation with the City and the other jurisdictions to recruit jobs. She requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney's Office. Ms. Bettman said that this was the second time she had reason to question the role of the partnership, noting that Mr. Roberts had previously lobbied her to support a hospital site in north Eugene when the council was on record as supporting a site in the central core south of the river. Ms. Bettman noted that the analysis called for an additional 2,500 acres of land to be designated for commercial or industrial uses and questioned how that could be done without expanding the urban growth boundary, which she did not support. She pointed out that those additional acres would also have constraints. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Taylor said she had not favored funding the partnership at all, and she did not favor allocating more money to the partnership. She noted that a recent opinion piece by Bob Doppelt of the University of Oregon had mentioned the folly of using incentives for businesses. She wanted to state that she was opposed to business recruitment. However, facilitation was another matter. Ms. Taylor thought the partnership's function should be to look at underused land in the community and to help existing businesses to relocate when they wanted to expand. Ms. Taylor did not think it mattered if a business was in Springfield or Eugene, or if Springfield had more industrial land than Eugene and Eugene had more commercial land than Springfield. She did not perceive that the community had received much in taxes from businesses such as Sony or Hynix. It was her perception that businesses that were recruited with incentives remained in a community until their tax breaks expired, and then they leave. Ms. Solomon supported the proposal and did not perceive it as an infringement on the council's policy prerogatives. She said that without the information generated as a result of the study, the council would be unable to make good policy decisions. Ms. Solomon supported the three- jurisdiction approach, suggesting that should resonate with the council given its recent discussion with the Planning Commission and its general agreement that there was a need to take things to a more regional level. She did not think the discussion was one about incentives, but merely putting on the table what was out there. Mr. Pap8 agreed with the comments of Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly. He found them very appropriate. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap8 about when the City last inventoried its land supply, Ms. Childs reviewed the information included in the Agenda Item Summary provided to each councilor, which indicated that the Metropolitan Industrial Lands and Eugene Commercial Lands studies were adopted in 1992. The Metropolitan Residential Lands Study was adopted in 1998. Springfield had recently completed an inventory of its commercial lands as part of periodic review. Ms. Childs suggested that the council also needed to consider the impact of the natural resources protection measures on the buildable lands inventory, and the City did not have that information at this point, although the partnership could do some preliminary work with the information that was available. However, she suspected that work would have to be redone when the extent of regional protections was established. Mr. Pap8 hoped the two jurisdictions' inventories could be done in common with common criteria in the future. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Roberts said that the partnership proposed to take the information that had been gathered in both communities and analyze whether there was an adequate supply of commercial and industrial lands. Mr. Roberts believed that the points made by Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly were well-taken. There was available land inside the urban growth boundary that was underused or may not be "ready to go," and that needed to be examined as well. He said that an inventory would allow the elected officials to make decisions with up-to-date, comprehensive factual information. Mr. Pap8 solicited another round of council comments and questions. Mr. Meisner was not interested in doing an inventory in isolation. He said that the mechanisms that were identified to remedy any land shortage were as important an issue to him as the MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 10 Work Session inventory. He said that the questions about what industrial uses were, what those uses were now, and what they should be in the future must be answered. He said that the community needed to determine what it wanted to use its industrial lands supply for to avoid shortages in the future. He did not want to lose land to inappropriate uses. Mr. Kelly said that the studies that had been mentioned had done a very good job of gathering data, but did not look at the redevelopment of land on a detailed level. The supply projections did not address issues such as the changing nature of industries. He said that was the sort of question that must be answered as part of any new project. Ms. Bettman said that many of the issues mentioned by councilors, such as the redevelopment of industrial land, would be addressed through a study supported by a Sustainability Economic Development grant. She said that there were many things the City could do already, such as limiting the conversion of land, cleaning up brownfield sites, consolidating sites, and making existing land shovel-ready. She thought there many opportunities to take advantage of before the City had to consider expanding the urban growth boundary. She pointed out that many of the lands outside the urban growth boundary were not served, and it would create a burden on the taxpayers to extend services to those lands. Mr. Pap8 adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 14, 2003 Page 11 Work Session