M I N U T E S

JOINT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS/

EUGENE CITY COUNCIL/

SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING

February 10, 2004

5:30 p.m.

Bascom/Tykeson Room--Eugene Library

APPROVED 3/10/04

 

Commissioner Bobby Green presided, with commissioners Bill Dwyer, Anna Morrison, Peter Sorenson, and Don Hampton present.

 

Eugene Mayor James D. Torrey presided, with councilors Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Gary Pape, George Polling, and Betty Taylor present.

 

Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken presided, with councilors Anne Ballew, Tammy Fitch, David Ralston, and John Woodrow present.

 

Staff Present:  City Manager Dennis Taylor, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Neil Björklund, City of Eugene; City Manager Mike Kelly, Joe Leahy, Greg Mott, Mark Metzger, City of Springfield; County Administrator  Bill Van Vactor, Steve Vorhes, Lane County; Carol Heinkel, Kathi Wiederhold, George Kleoppel, Denise Kalakay, Lane Council of Governments.

 

Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.

 

Mr. Green called the meeting of the Lane Board of County Commissioners to order.  He alerted those present who wished to discuss the Matthews property that the board would hold a public hearing on the topic the following day. 

 

Mayor Leiken called the meeting of the Springfield City Council to order.

 

1.  PUBLIC HEARING:  An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Plan (Metro Plan) to Adopt as Part of Periodic Review Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions; a New Metro Plan Chapter III-C:  Environmental Resources Element; a New Metro Plan Diagram; Adopting Savings and Severability Clauses; and Providing an Effective Date

 

Carol Heinkel of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) provided the elected officials with a PowerPoint presentation regarding the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Periodic Review text and diagram amendments.  The presentation provided background on the process and described the public outreach that occurred.  Ms. Heinkel explained that, at the direction of the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), the periodic review work tasks were narrowed to only those required by the State of Oregon.  She reported that only the natural resource work item, Springfield wetlands work item, and County adoption of the Springfield Drinking Water Study remained to be completed. 

 

Ms. Heinkel reported that the three planning commissions had recommended adoption of the amendments, which would make the Metro Plan consistent with new State laws and administrative rules.  She indicated that some changes to the documents had been made following the planning commission process at the recommendation of legal counsel.  A few word changes were made to Exhibit B that were informally agreed to by those commissions. 

 

Ms. Heinkel called the elected officials’ attention to Exhibits A (Metro Plan Housekeeping Revisions, Other Text Amendments), Exhibit B (Metropolitan Natural Resources Study), and Exhibit C (Metro Plan Diagram Changes), which reflected the changes being proposed.  She identified those work tasks that would be the subject of the public hearing, and noted that Lane County would hold a public hearing immediately after on its riparian regulations.

 

Ms. Wiederhold provided further detail regarding Exhibit B.  She described the various elements of the Natural Resources Study and noted the associated subtasks.  She summarized the key amendments proposed to Chapter III-C of the Metro Plan. 

 

Mr. Yeiter provided further detail on the revisions to the Metro Plan Diagram.  He noted that the LCOG RLID system provided the mapping before the elected officials, and allowed the development of a more detailed diagram.  He briefly noted changes being proposed to the diagram, including the removal of the urban reserves. 

 

Mr. Metzer briefly reviewed revisions being proposed to the Springfield side of the Metro Plan Diagram, reporting that changes were being proposed to reflect actual and future uses. 

 

Ms. Heinkel called attention to new replacement page II-G-1, distributed to the elected officials.  She emphasized the diagram was transitioning to a parcel-specific map. 

 

Ms. Heinkel said the purpose of the meeting was for the elected officials to hear public testimony on the plan text and diagram amendments.  She said that following the hearing, staff would respond to the public testimony.  The three elected bodies would take separate action, with tentative action set for the Eugene council on March 10; the Springfield council on March 15; and the Lane County board on March 16.  She said that, following action by the elected officials, the completed work tasks would be submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development for acknowledgement.  Ms. Heinkel anticipated the region would continue metropolitan planning efforts that met the needs of the three jurisdictions.

 

Mayor Torrey called for comments and questions.

 

Mr. Kelly commended the reorganization of the document.  He requested that the Eugene council be provided with copies of the Eugene Planning Commission’s minutes reflecting its discussion on the topics before the elected officials prior to the work session at which the council would take action.

 

Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, Ms. Wiederhold explained that the text was written as though adopted. 

 

Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly about the two Willamette Greenway policies proposed for deletion, Ms. Heinkel explained that both policies speak to the implementation of State Goal 15, and they were replaced by a new Finding 11 that spoke to how that implementation would be accomplished. 

 

Ms. Ballew asked how the Emerald Peoples Utility District court action regarding service to the area now served by Pacific Gas & Electric affected the proposals before the elected officials.  Ms. Heinkel said that staff was aware of the action and would respond to the question in writing after more research.

 

Responding to a question from Ms. Fitch regarding the staff recommendation to insert the objectives, Ms. Heinkel said the planning commissions had not reviewed the change.  The staff recommendation to include the objectives was based on legal advice from Lane County’s counsel that they provide legislative intent. 

 

Mr. Kelly referred to the Energy Section in the Metro Plan and asked why Policy J1, which recommended the coordinated development of a detailed metropolitan energy management plan, was proposed to be struck.  He thought the exercise would be a valuable one.  Ms. Heinkel noted the change was included in the housekeeping items and explained that the effort had been attempted but abandoned due to a lack of interest.   Mr. Kelly expressed interest in knowing the opinions of others, as he thought the idea had merit.

 

Mr. Kelly asked why the Willamette Greenway study was dropped.  Ms. Heinkel said the State legislature passed Senate Bill 920, which set out the mandated periodic work task items and gave local jurisdictions the opportunity to stop work on nonmandated items.  The study was in draft form but the work item was removed from the work plan because it was not mandated.  The continuation of the study was a separate question from periodic review. 

 

In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding the elimination of Forest Policy 17 from Exhibit B and where its intent was captured, Ms. Heinkel agreed to follow-up in writing.

Mr. Papé referred to page II-A-2 of the packet and asked Eugene staff to respond in writing as to whether Policy 6 had constituted the basis for the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission’s recent denial of Springfield’s annexation to the Willakenzie Fire District.

 

Ms. Fitch asked if staff had considered, through the housekeeping changes, developing a clear diagram amendment process in a manner that protected the home rule rights of each jurisdiction.   Ms. Heinkel indicated that an early periodic work task had streamlined the process outlined in Chapter 4 but she agreed more work was needed.  She thought the effort went beyond housekeeping, and could be a work program item that staff could scope for the elected officials. 

 

Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Fitch, Ms. Heinkel said that periodic review was mandated, and the State-mandated work tasks were outlined in Senate Bill 920.  None of the mandated work tasks addressed Ms. Fitch’s concerns.  Mayor Torrey suggested that now was a good time to get certainty around the question asked by Ms. Fitch.  He thought the elected officials should deal with the issue if they could.

 

Ms. Morrison expressed hope that the elected officials would not have to revisit some of the residential lands studies as a result of the statement in II-A-2 regarding population decreases.  Ms. Heinkel assured her it did not result in that.  She said the number referred to by Ms. Morrison was a clarification of the previous population figure, which was for a study area and did not relate to the urban growth boundary.

 

Mr. Kelly agreed with Mayor Torrey that clarity about such processes was needed.  He noted that Eugene had also discussed the potential formation of service districts.  He was interested in focusing on the task before the elected officials, as he thought the item would require both money and additional effort.

 

Responding to Mr. Kelly, Ms. Fitch said the reality of the situation was that a change desired by one jurisdiction could be vetoed by another jurisdiction.  She said Springfield worked to be a good partner but had some key issues coming up.  She believed the response to those issues could be key to how Springfield could partner together with the other jurisdictions in the future. 

 

Ms. Heinkel indicated that staff could prepare a scope of work for the desired effort, as well as a process for how it was accomplished, which could inform the elected officials’ thinking about timing and funding. 

 

Ms. Bettman said she was interested in knowing the cities’ roles in land use issues in the area outside the city limits but inside the UGB.  She thought those decisions could be of interest to the neighboring city.  However, it was her interpretation of the materials that discrepancies were to be resolved by the MPC.  As a council appointee to the MPC, she had experienced frustration with the way issues were processed through that body.  If the MPC was the conflict resolution body for the Metro Plan, it should be employed until a change is made.  If a change to the process was to be made, it should be made through the MPC rather than at this time.   

 

Mr. Dwyer said the Metro Plan applied to all partner jurisdictions and represented a plan of how best local government could deliver services to citizens and involves them in the process.  He did not object to discussion of a metropolitan service system that changed the way services were delivered and saved taxpayers money.  However, he thought such discussions should come later.  He wanted to involve people living in the areas outside the cities in the discussions as he thought they had a role to play as well.

 

Mr. Green said he was encouraged that people wanted clarity about the process of amending the plan.  He said the board was interested in win-win solutions and wanted what was best for the entire region.  He said the board was willing to engage in discussions about change but at this time he preferred to focus on the amendments.  He asked Ms. Heinkel to scope the effort required and the estimated cost. 

 

Mayor Torrey expressed appreciation to Ms. Fitch for raising the issue.

 

Ms. Bettman indicated that a comment section describing the reasons for changes would be useful. 

 

Mr. Dwyer suggested the elected officials needed to consider other models for service delivery that addressed regional concerns.  He asked staff to give the elected officials ideas about those models so they had a place to start. 

 

Mayor Torrey reviewed the format for the public hearing.

 

Ms. Fitch advocated that those wishing to testify about the Matthews property be allowed to speak to the elected officials, given what she believed to be the relevance of the issue to future possible amendments.  Mr. Green indicated he would request those offering testimony about the Matthews property to speak last.

 

Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing for the Eugene City Council.

 

Mr. Green opened the public hearing for the Lane Board of County Commissioners.

 

Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing for the Springfield City Council.

 

 

Lauri Segel, 120 West Broadway, Eugene, spoke on behalf of 1,000 Friends of Oregon.  She submitted written testimony for the record.  Ms. Segel referred to the goal 3 and 4 policies and suggested there was inconsistency in the policy language.  She cited Policy C-1 as an example, saying that within the policy statement there were relevant factors for determining what land would be considered for inclusion in the UGB.  The factors included several factors such as ownership patterns and proximity to agricultural soils or current farm uses.  Those factors were not reflected in State law or statute; she maintained there were statutes forbidding the metropolitan area from taking those factors into consideration.  She cited Oregon Revised Statute 660.033.0030, which stated that Goal 3 attached no significance to ownership when determining a parcel was agricultural.  She also found a Goal 4 inconsistency in that the policy language defined forests based on US Department of Agricultural soil ratings translated into productivity ratings and existing forest cover.  She maintained that in State rules forest lands were those acknowledged to be forest lands. 

 

Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, spoke to policies in Goal 5.  He recommended the following amendment to existing Policy 25:   “Springfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts for water quality when planning for urbanization, flood control, urban storm runoff, and recreational needs in near proximity to the Willamette and McKenzie rivers.”  He suggested that Policy 29 be changed to “The air, water, and land resource quality of the metropolitan area has not been assessed since adoption of the Metro Plan in 1982.  Prior to the completion of the next Metro Plan update, the air, water, and land resource quality of the metropolitan area must be reassessed.” 

 

Mr. Emmons disagreed with a contention in the plan that the Goal 5 wetland and riparian corridor requirements for the area between the UGB and plan boundary adequately addressed fish habitat, saying it was not substantiated and staff should be identifying how fish habitat was being protected.   He believed the current Lane County riparian setbacks were inadequate to protect fish habitat.  He recommended one tree length as the minimum distance needed.   He called for the reconsideration and strengthening of the habitat conservation zone proposal. 

 

Jerry Ritter, 1865 Yolanda Avenue, Springfield, said he represented Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexation.  He indicated his organization’s support for policies that required new development to pay for the cost of the capacity needed to serve it.  He supported the inclusion of language regarding voluntary annexation and asked that the text be revised to include all unincorporated areas in the UGB, suggesting that to do otherwise was a violation of Oregon’s equal protection clause.  He said that those in the unincorporated areas were not interested in annexing to Springfield.   He indicated strong support for citizen involvement but did not think the Metro Plan represented the public will, as he believed it had little public involvement.  Mr. Ritter submitted written testimony. 

 

Debra Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, Eugene, said the map continued to portray her property incorrectly.  She asked that the map be corrected.  Ms. Jeffries commended Lane County for taking the Safe Harbor approach to wetlands protection as she believed it demonstrated economic responsibility.  She said Eugene had budgeted considerable money for its effort and was not close to being done because of the inventory requirement.  She asked the elected officials to pay attention to the economics of the issue.  

 

Ms. Jeffries asserted that the MPC process did not work for periodic review.  She further asserted that the State did not require an inventory and evaluation of Goal 5 resources.  She interpreted the intent and purpose of the relevant Oregon Administrative Rule as establishing procedures and criteria for the purpose, and asked that the elected officials review the rule.

 

Jim Hale, 1715 Linnea Avenue, Eugene, a member of the committee that created the first Metro Plan, advocated that the community discard the Metro Plan and begin again.  He said the data the document was based upon was not up-to-date.  He said the elected officials should consider the most effective and inexpensive way to deliver services, and called on them to discard the principle that cities were the providers of urban services.  Mr. Hale advocated for metropolitan service districts governed by the Board of County Commissioners.  He called on the elected officials to spend more money on police services.  Mr. Hale asked the elected officials to do things “differently” in a way citizens could easily see, and perhaps save more money to do other things the community wished to accomplish. 

 

 

Jan Wilson, 1260 President Street, Eugene, asked that the written record be left open so she could address some of the issues raised at the earlier work session.  She opposed the Safe Harbor approach and urged Lane County not to adopt it.  She opposed the elimination of statements that required the performance of an ESEE analysis.   She asked for the inclusion of a policy that prioritized the ESEE process to protect sites on the inventory when proposed for development. 

 

Bruce Miller, PO Box 50968, Eugene, did not address the subject of the hearing but instead announced an upcoming meeting of the State Board of Higher Education. 

 

Robert O’Brian, 3525 Gilham Road, Eugene, expressed concern about the deletion of the Willamette Greenway Study from the periodic review process.  He expressed concern about the potential of further development in the Greenway, and suggested the fact there was a State goal related to the Willamette River spoke to its importance to Oregonians.  Mr. O’Brian cited OAR 660.015.0005.  He asked the elected officials to ensure the study was done, even if not mandated. 

 

Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, represented the Lane County Homebuilders Association, also asked that the record be kept open.  She asked the elected officials to reconsider the findings and policies associated with the residential lands supply.  Ms. Cuellar said there was a change in the population estimate.  The Residential Land Use Study relied on a range of numbers, and there was now a change in the finding that was limited to a single number, which affected the other factors in the study.  It made some of the findings, such as Finding 3 related to needed housing units, inaccurate.  She thought if the population estimate was to be changed, other things should be changed as well.  She suggested the former population estimate be retained.  Ms. Cuellar also suggested the tables in the document should be dated.   

 

Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, representing the Friends of Eugene, also asked that the record be left open.   He noted the completion of other studies and advocated for the completion of the Natural Resources Study.   He said that there was discussion of running Highway 99 along the riverfront, so the planning was critical.  Mr. Matthews suggested that the result of some of the changes being proposed would be to water down the Metro Plan so it was consistent with the community’s inability to do effective natural resource planning.  He asked the elected officials to maintain the Metro Plan’s requirements for substantive natural resource planning with an effective completion date, and to discard the amendments before them.  

 

Steve Moe, PO Box 847, Springfield, also a member of the original committee that created the Metro Plan, suggested that the plan was not fulfilling its initial intent, which was to bring all the partners together to process land use decisions of an area-wide impact in a positive way.  He said that while Springfield had declined to involve itself in Eugene’s 6th/7th widening project, the Lane County board had inserted itself in the ambulance district issue faced by Eugene and used its veto power to affect events.  He thought the fact one jurisdiction could veto a major project in another jurisdiction was a serious problem.   Mr. Moe pointed out that Eugene-Springfield was the only Oregon community with such a planning pact and advocated for each city to move forward with its own general plan to recognize the uniqueness of each community.   

 

James Seaberry, 3294 Stark Street, Eugene, did not understand the prohibition on special districts now included in the plan.  He invited the elected officials to contact him so he could share his thoughts with them. 

 

Rob Handy, 455-1/2 River Road, Eugene, spoke of his concerns regarding development pressures in the Willamette Greenway, and asked the elected officials to complete the Willamette Greenway Study to demonstrate the community’s concern about the river.  He said the plan was otherwise inconsistent with Goal 15.

 

Mark Rabinowitz, 28549 Suthern Lane, Eugene, supported the removal of the urban reserves from the Metro Plan Diagram.  However, he objected that the plan appeared to be a lot of polices without any follow-through.  As an example, he cited policies related to conservation and what he considered a contrary decision to construct the West Eugene Parkway.  He said the parkway should be canceled as it was his opinion the projections about the number of cars it would carry were exaggerated.   Mr. Rabinowitz shared his personal philosophy about the use of petroleum products with the elected officials, which he believed represented sufficient reason to revise the plan to prepare for a time when petroleum products were more expensive. 

 

John Louch, 715 West 4th Avenue, Eugene, representing Eugene School District 4J.  He supported the removal of the Public Lands designation for surplus property in Santa Clara owned by the school district.  He said the district was attempting to rezone the property in advance of marketing it.  The property was currently zoned Public Lands/Neighborhood Commercial.  It was adjacent to neighborhood commercial uses.  Mr. Louch noted the staff suggestion the designation would revert to low-density residential if designated, and asked that the property be redesignated for commercial use instead.   He pointed out that the current diagram was from the 1982 plan, and it showed an undefined amount of commercial property along River Road.  He believed that was a sensible conclusion given the exposure of the property to the intersection of River  Road and Hunsaker Lane.  He said that more commercial land, rather than less, would provide the district with greater flexibility and maximize the revenue from the property’s sale.

 

Jim Spickerman, 975 Oak Street, Suite 800, represented School District 4J.  He echoed Mr. Louch’s request for the Santa Clara property owned by the school district as well as for other district-owned properties.  He suggested the elected officials could make the adjustment at this time, and recommended it rely on the adopted 1982 Metro Plan Diagram. 

 

Steve Ward, 84434 Pheasant Lane, Pleasant Hill, expressed concern about the removal of the urban reserves and questioned the adequacy of the developable land remaining in the community.  He said the removal of the reserves would make it more difficult for him to annex the property he owned in that area.  He believed the value of his land would be diminished as a result.  Mr. Ward concurred with the written submission of the Lane County Homebuilders Association.  He said the land available for development should be increased. 

 

Bill Kloos, PO Box 11906, Eugene, representing the Lane County Homebuilders Association, said that under State statute, the community needed to have a 20-year supply of developable land.  He suggested the reserves be retained because they could come in handy in the future. 

 

Mr. Kloos said the absence of a parcel-specific Metro Plan Diagram was a serious problem.  Such a diagram was needed.  He was often unable to respond to his clients when they asked what their properties were designated.  Mr. Kloos noted that two Web sites, one containing an Excel spreadsheet with parcels and the second with a parcel-specific Metro Plan Diagram, had been removed from the LCOG web site following the hearing before the Joint Planning Commissions.  He said that rather than moving away from parcel specificity, the community should be moving toward it.  He did not understand that.

 

There being no further requests to speak, Mayor Torrey deemed the oral portion of the public hearing closed. 

 

Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to hold the record for the Eugene City Council open for ten days.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

Ms. Fitch, seconded by Ms.  Ballew, moved to hold the record for the Springfield City Council open for ten days.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

Mr. Dwyer, seconded by Mr. Hampton, moved to hold the record for the Lane County Board of County Commissioners open for ten days.  The motion passed unanimously.

 

Ms. Heinkel indicated the record would remain open until February 20, 2004.

 

Staff addressed the testimony.  Ms. Heinkel anticipated the majority of the staff response would be in writing. 

 

Speaking to the testimony offered by Mr. Hale, Ms. Heinkel clarified that the periodic review process was not intended to be a visioning process or a redraft of the Metro Plan; that did not mean there were not other changes that were required, and some were discussed tonight. 

 

Speaking to Ms. Cuellar’s testimony, Ms. Heinkel clarified the projection had not changed; it was the projection for the UGB.  Staff recommended the changes before the elected officials because the planning commissions had pointed out there were three different projections in the plan.  Staff reviewed the document and determined where different projections were needed.  She said the projection change did not change the findings, conclusions, or policies of the Residential Lands Study. 

 

Speaking to Mr. Kloos’ testimony, Ms. Heinkel said the intent of the diagram changes and the recommended text changes were to make the diagram parcel-specific except where a parcel borders more than one designation.   Those interpretations would be made with input from the community.

 

Mayor Torrey invited questions and comments.

 

Ms. Bettman asked how many parcels bordered on more than one designation.  Ms. Heinkel said the vast majority of parcels would be parcel-specific in the new diagram.  Ms. Bettman questioned what resources would be needed to accomplish the goal of a truly parcel-specific diagram.  Ms. Heinkel said she would attempt to secure a cost estimate.

 

Ms. Bettman asked if the population projection could be characterized as clear and objective.  Ms. Heinkel said yes.  The methodology used went through a public process and was overseen by an advisory committee.  She said that the projection was not an exact science, and a certain amount of policy was involved.   Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Heinkel confirmed the projection was based on the census. 

 

Mr. Sorenson determined from Ms. Wiederhold that there was no change to the number of air monitoring sites in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan as a result of the plan amendments.  Mr. Sorenson expressed concern a single monitoring site might not be adequate. 

 

Mr. Sorenson noted a loss of manufacturing employment in the United States and asked if that change was being reflected in local planning documents.  Ms. Heinkel said the Economic Element of the plan was not updated as part of periodic review.  She said the issue was last examined through the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Study of 1990.  Mr. Sorenson suggested the topic had an impact on the population estimates.  Ms. Heinkel indicated she would provide the elected officials with information about the methodology used to establish the projections.

 

Ms. Nathanson asked staff to respond to the issue of mapping raised by Ms. Jeffries.  She also asked that staff provide the Eugene council with a list of pros and cons for redesignating the property owned by School District 4J as requested.  She also requested staff comment on the subject of whether there should be an urban reserve, suggesting the council be provided with the minutes reflecting its initial discussion on the proposal.

 

Responding to a question from Mr. Papé regarding the population estimate, Ms. Heinkel reviewed the methodology for the population projection and clarified there was no new estimate and old estimate; instead, the projection staff proposed to replace in the Metro Plan what had been formerly termed the Metro Study Area, which was based on census tracts. 

 

Ms. Bettman recalled the decision to remove the urban reserves was made previously because of the State determination they were no longer necessary, and the plan was now being amended to reflect that change.  Ms. Heinkel concurred.  

 

Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Heinkel said the elected officials should change a parcel’s designation if the change was demonstrated to be consistent with the Metro Plan Diagram.  Ms. Bettman feared that if the elected officials were to do so, others would be impelled to seek a similar change.  Mr. Yeiter said the “blob” diagram made it difficult to discern the designation for the property.  He said if the elected officials chose not to change the designation for the properties, the district was likely to see a Metro Plan amendment.  He said that staff may offer options for the Eugene council to consider.  Ms. Bettman said in such cases Eugene should be scrupulous, consistent, and fair.  If such a window was to be opened, it should be open to all. 

 

Mr. Yeiter spoke to the issue of a parcel-specific diagram.  He said staff differed as to the utility of such a diagram.  He said there were many issues to be worked out, such as what happened when someone sought a lot line adjustment; there were currently no rules for such a parcel-specific diagram, and he asked what happened in the case of split parcel; did one designation supercede another?  He said new rules and perhaps a streamlined minor Metro Plan amendment process might be needed.  He said that staff did not want Mr. Kloos’ clients to be in the position of seeking a Metro Plan amendment in such cases. 

 

Ms. Fitch requested a staff response to Ms. Cuellar’s testimony regarding the statutory requirement for a 20-year land supply, and if the requirement existed, why it was not being fulfilled. 

 

Mayor Torrey recalled the Eugene council’s discussion about the switching land inside and outside of the UGB to accommodate a new City park and asked how that topic related to the discussion at hand.  Mr. Yeiter said the area under discussion was currently in the urban reserves and did not meet the current State rules for those reserves.  He had considered making a recommendation to the council to retain the reserve, but the State priorities for where the reserve could be expanded were very specific.  The top priority was for reserves adopted prior to the rule, which Eugene’s did not meet.  The State also stipulated that such expansion would not occur on prime agricultural land, which some of the land in question was.  He said he would do additional research to determine what could be accomplished inside of periodic review. 

 

Ms. Fitch asked what goals took priority.  She suggested the lack of a 20-year land supply would mean the community was out-of-compliance with State laws.  Ms. Heinkel said the community was required to have a 20-year land supply at the time of periodic review, or during a legislative review of the UGB.  She said that the three jurisdictions had completed the Residential Lands Study as part of periodic review.  She said the urban reserves were not related to the supply of land inside the UGB because of their location and because they were designed to accommodate land needs beyond the 20-year horizon.

 

Mr. Dwyer determined from Ms. Heinkel that through the periodic review process, the three jurisdictions will have completed the metropolitan portion of the National Resources Study.  She indicated that jurisdiction-specific work remained to be completed, and that effort was underway. 

 

Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Heinkel indicated a written response regarding the testimony on the Willamette Greenway Study would be provided to all the elected officials.

 

        Ms. Morrison, seconded by Mr. Dwyer, moved third reading of the

ordinance.  The motion passed unanimously. 

 

The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.

 

 

(Recorded by Kimberly Young)