Planning Commission
Regular MeetingEugene, OR · April 12, 2010
Minutes
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue
April 12, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Randy Hledik, William
Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Jason Dedrick, Lisa Gardner, Carolyn Weiss, Planning
and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney.
ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
II. EUGENE COMPREHENSIVE LANDS ASSESSMENT (ECLA) UPDATE
Jason Dedrick, 6541-682-5451
III. ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE
Carolyn Weiss, 541-682-8816
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2010 Page 1
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10th Avenue
April 12, 2010
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; Jonathan Belcher, Randy Hledik, William
Randall, Lisa Warnes, members; Jason Dedrick, Lisa Gardner, Carolyn Weiss, Planning
and Development Department; Emily Jerome, City Attorney.
ABSENT: Rick Duncan, member.
Ms. Beierle convened the Planning Commission at 11:35 a.m.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
Nancy Ellen Locke, 1130 West 25th Avenue, was a board member of the Friendly Area Neighbors and
the Southtowne Business Association. The groups had been collaborating with the Planning Division and
Public Works Department to develop a bicycle, pedestrian and bus friendly environment at Willamette
Street and Oak Street. She saw their work relating to the Envision Eugene work to bring development
into the neighborhood. The group hoped Willard School would remain a school or become affordable
housing and a park. She circulated a brochure entitled Southtowne and Willamette Street Walking Tour.
Responding to questions from commissioners, she said she understood the Eugene School District would
have to sell Willard School to the City if the district decided to sell the property. The 20 Minute
Neighborhood meeting on April 13, 2010 was an extension of Opportunity Siting.
Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, was a member of the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
Community (ECLA) Advisory Committee (CAC). He asked commissioners to encourage staff to get a
more accurate and comprehensive definition of what ECLA was intended to produce regarding H.B. 3337
and to produce another analysis that would take into consideration the market response if the urban
growth boundary (UGB) and policies remained constant. He distributed a copy of a letter dated April 12,
2010 regarding ELCA Land Need that he had sent to commissioners
Jeff Nelson, 2144 East Fifteenth Avenue, was a member and former chair and co-chair of the Fairmount
Neighbors, co-chair of the East Campus Committee, and chair of the Arena Committee. He shared his
observations regarding mixed used centers (MUCs), which had many interested parties and differing
opinions. He thought there was a lack of understanding of some definitions and encouraged the
commission to look at definitions for particular uses of allowed and prohibited parking for public and
private uses. He was frustrated with a lack of understanding of common definitions.
II. EUGENE COMPREHENSIVE LANDS ASSESSMENT (ECLA) UPDATE
Mr. Dedrick offered the staff report. He provided an update on ECLA in preparation for a City Council
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2010 Page 2
work session on April 21, 2010. The goal of ECLA was to determine whether Eugene had a sufficient
supply of land within the urban growth boundary (UGB) to meet the projected demand for residential,
commercial, industrial, and non-economic land for the next 20 years. The study addressed H.B. 3337
which directed the Cities of Eugene and Springfield to undertake a study of residential lands sufficiency
and to adopt separate UGBs. He reviewed the work of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC)
which began in October 2008. The City Council briefing memorandum would be e-mailed to
commissioners and placed on the commission web page on Friday, April 16. He distributed and reviewed
a document entitled ECLA Land Need which was a reflection of the baseline assumptions and of the
resolution of the outstanding issues and buildable lands inventory concerns. He stated ECLA would
trigger an examination of the City’s policies that potentially could result in a change in the UGB. The
Envision Eugene project was the means through which the City would address ECLA related topics. The
components of ECLA would be formally adopted at the conclusion of the Envision Eugene process as
part of the establishment of a Eugene only UGB. The work was scheduled for completion in February
2011.
In response to a question from Ms. Warnes, Mr. Dedrick said staff was working to provide better visual
aides to help explain the complicated UGB process.
In response to Mr. Hledik, Mr. Dedrick responded to Mr. Conte’s concerns. He said there was an existing
land need that did not involve changes to current policies. The Envision Eugene process would look at
needed policy changes to enable the community to achieve its density goals. The 2008 ECONorthwest
document identified a baseline land need and varied some assumptions to achieve a range of possible land
need outcomes. Some committee members were concerned about the top end variation of the ECLA
interpretation that a policy change would not be needed. Mr. Dedrick said the document was a reasonable
reflection of a land need but other options could require policy changes. He opined changes to plan
designations, lot size minimums, or how the MUC program was applied represented potential changes
that could change land uses.
Ms. Jerome said she had met with Mr. Conte prior to today’s meeting regarding his concerns. When
looking forward 20 years, the result was a reasonable best guess scenario. Reasonable assumptions were
used to determine how much land within the City of Eugene’s portion of the current UGB was available
for future development. Some people in the community were uncomfortable with the development
capacity being assigned to the current land inventory. The ECONorthwest document assumed land would
be consumed in the future much the way it had been consumed in the past, using the same densities and
housing mix. If the UGB was not changed there was not sufficient land to accommodate the need without
some changes to regulations and the UGB. If few changes were made the market would react to the need
for more affordable housing and a different mix of uses would result. She noted Eugene had had a
surplus of land for the last 20 years which had been mostly developed. The market and median incomes
would impact decisions on the UGB.
In response to a question from Mr. Mills related to use of land outside the UGB for parklands and
industrial lands, Mr. Dedrick said the project and priority plan adopted by the City Council identified a
series of parkland acquisitions over 20 years. The plan adopted approximately 2,000 acres of land, not all
of which needed to be met inside the UGB. For ECLA, it was important to identify parkland needs within
the UGB which would likely be accounted for in residential land.
Ms. Weiss said parkland outside of the UGB included land needed to complete the Ridgeline Trail which
did not need urban services, while Golden Gardens and Santa Clara Community Park were intended to
have urban services provided, and were located outside the UGB. Approximately 350 acres less
approximately 50 acres of protected lands would be needed for projects within the UGB. She offered to
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2010 Page 3
provide commissioners with additional information on the parkland allocations.
Mr. Belcher noted the PROS Plan was adopted by the City Council as an advisory plan and some argued
it did not have legal weight. Others would argue the acquisition plan was simply a wish list. He opined
neither were land use documents.
Ms. Weiss confirmed the PROS plan was not adopted because it had been remanded, but the project and
priority plan was an adopted plan, and while not a development plan, system development charges
(SDCs) were based on that adopted plan.
Mr. Dedrick said the parkland issue would be flagged and forwarded to the Envision Eugene process.
Mr. Dedrick briefly reviewed the industrial land need, noting various sized parcels were needed in
varying locations to meet specific needs including transportation. The State allowed cities to consider
specific site needs when developing its industrial land need to address its economic strategies. The City
had not yet identified those economic strategies.
Mr. Belcher asked if ECLA as currently defined, was defensible in court.
Ms. Jerome said ECLA was the beginning of the community planning work and will include the housing
needs analysis. She added the City would either need to change the UGB or change the way development
occurred.
Mr. Randall said as he understood H.B. 3337, completion of the inventory, analysis and determination
was the beginning of compliance with H.B. 3337.
III. ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE
Technical Analysis Approach
Ms. O'Donnell provided the staff report, reviewing the Technical Analysis Approach of the project. The
technical analysis component of the work must be completed prior to August 2010 to allow local adoption
by the City Council’s requested deadline of February 2011. A variety of growth scenarios for land use
efficiency measures, including efficient use of land within the UGB, changing minimum lot standards,
revising existing or adding new regulations, and considering development incentives, would be analyzed
and a preferred scenario developed. The analysis would include cataloguing current efficient
development standards in place at the City. Proposed efficiency measures would be circulated to and
reviewed by existing boards, committees and other groups that were currently engaged in land use and
development activities such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA), the Infill Compatibility
Standards Committee, and the Eugene Downtown Advisory Committee (ERAC). The Planning
Commission would review the preliminary information in May as well as preliminary information from
ECONorthwest regarding the effectiveness of the proposed efficiency measures. Staff was conducting
preliminary scoping meetings with service providers, including Eugene Water and Electric Board
(EWEB), Lane Transit District (LTD), the school districts and other City departments, that would provide
preliminary information related to areas outside the UGB that could easily be serviced. Additional
limitations on potential UGB expansion would be identified, and Goal 5 and traffic impact issues would
also be identified. In May and June, scenario options would be developed. The housing and economic
needs analysis would be conducted, as well as commercial and industrial needs analysis. The final
adoption package would include efficiency measures such as code amendments, land use, refinement plan
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2010 Page 4
or Metro Plan amendments, and other necessary revisions.
Mr. Belcher noted some policies would need to be clarified, including that for MUCs and storm water
issues. He said existing documents on housing affordability implied that someone of medium income
could not afford a medium priced home in Eugene. He asked if housing affordability would be part of the
efficiency measures review. He was concerned that people who wanted to live and work in Eugene
would be forced to move to other communities. He asked if the analysis would assume the housing
demand would go down because people were being pushed out to other communities.
Ms. O'Donnell stated red flags, such as the housing affordability analysis, would be part of the efficiency
measures analysis. The potential reduction in housing demand would be looked at closely.
In response to a question from Ms. Beierle, Ms. O'Donnell said redesignation of existing land within the
UGB would be considered to meet demands.
Public Engagement Approach
Ms. Weiss provided the staff report, reviewing the Public Engagement Approach of the project. She
reviewed the elements of the project as iterated in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). She highlighted
several elements, noting community listening sessions were underway and the City Manager planned to
convene a 50 person community group to collaborate on growth strategy recommendations. The website,
www.EnvisionEugene.org had been launched. She circulated copies of a postcard that would be mailed
in the near future.
Mr. Belcher commended staff for their excellent work on a daunting task.
Mr. Hledik asked that the Historic Review Board (HRB) be included in the efficiency survey list of
groups being consulted.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff—no other items.
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. Mills said a Chadwick listening session was scheduled this week with the HRB. The joint
subcommittee with the chairs and vice chairs of the Planning Commission and Sustainability Commission
recently met and decided the joint commissions would discuss the LTD EmX routing and selection
process, and the use of the triple bottom line tool to evaluate routes. Commissioners would be polled for
meeting availability.
Ms. Beierle said the working group was trying to decide on a name for the group, and developing a
protocol to use the triple bottom line tool with the working group.
Mr. Hledik and Mr. Randall said they would participate on a Cal Young community panel in conjunction
with National Volunteer Week.
Mr. Randall said he participated in the AIA vetting process for Walnut Station proposals. Three scenarios
were considered by the group and the results would be presented to the Planning Commission in the
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2010 Page 5
future.
Ms. Beierle adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission April 12, 2010 Page 6
Agenda
AGENDA
EUGENE PLANNING COMMISSION
Phone: 541‐682‐5481 Atrium Building, Sloat Room, 99 West 10th Avenue
www.eugene‐or.gov/pc Eugene, OR 97401
The Eugene Planning Commission welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as
you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair‐accessible. For the hearing impaired,
FM assistive‐listening devices are available or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours notice prior to the
meeting. Spanish‐language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours notice. To arrange for these
services, contact the receptionist at 541‐682‐5481. Telecommunications devices for deaf assistance are
available at 541‐682‐5119.
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010 – REGULAR MEETING (11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.)
11:30 a.m. I. PUBLIC COMMENT
The Planning Commission reserves 10 minutes at the beginning of this meeting for public
comment. The public may comment on any matter, except for items scheduled for public
hearing or public hearing items for which the record has already closed. Generally, the
time limit for public comment is three minutes; however, the Planning Commission reserves
the option to reduce the time allowed each speaker based on the number of people
requesting to speak.
11:40 a.m. II. EUGENE COMPREHENSIVE LANDS ASSESSMENT (ECLA) UPDATE
Staff: Jason Dedrick, 541‐682‐5451
12:30 p.m. IV. ENVISION EUGENE UPDATE
Staff: Terri Harding (541‐682‐5635) and Heather O’Donnell (541‐682‐5288)
1:15 p.m. V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
Commissioners: Heidi Beierle, Chair; Jonathan Belcher; Rick Duncan, Randy Hledik,
Jeffery Mills, Vice Chair; William Randall; Lisa Warnes
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
April 12, 2010
To: Eugene Planning Commission
From: Jason Dedrick, City of Eugene Planning Division
Subject: Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment
ACTION REQUESTED
This work session is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive an update on the Eugene
Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA). Although no formal action is being requested, this is an opportunity
to identify comments and concerns that can be forwarded to City Council for their consideration.
BRIEFING STATEMENT
Staff will provide an update on ECLA including:
a) A process overview of the work of the Community Advisory Committee since last November.
b) An overview of the land need associated with the baseline assumption that has been developed. As the
land need analysis is currently being calculated, a handout will be distributed at the meeting that presents a
summary of the overall land need.
This work session precedes an April 21st work session with the City Council when they will potentially accept
the results of ECLA.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The goal of ECLA is to determine whether Eugene has a sufficient supply of land within the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) to meet the projected demand for residential, commercial, industrial, and non‐economic land
over the next 20 years. This study addresses Oregon House Bill 3337, which directed the Cities of Eugene and
Springfield to undertake a study of residential lands sufficiency. The scope was expanded by council direction
to assess employment and other land needs as well. This legislation also requires both Springfield and Eugene
to adopt separate UGB’s.
Work began on ECLA in 2008 and a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) was convened in October of that
year. In late 2009, a series of outstanding issues were identified by CAC members. Based on the uncertainty
introduced by these issues, the City Council took action in December to accept a draft range of land need. It
was anticipated that this range would narrow once work on the outstanding issues was complete. Small
groups of CAC members and staff have been working toward consensus on the resolution of these issues since
December. A briefing memo that is going to the Eugene City Council provides an update on each of these
outstanding issues. This memo will be emailed to Planning Commissioners and placed on the Planning
Commission web page on Friday, once the City Council packet has been distributed.
Additional work has also been done on the Buildable Lands Inventory as a result of comments from CAC
members. Several properties were shifted from the “developable” to “developed” category based on some
incorrect data on assessed value. In addition, several properties did not have the proper land use classification
and have been corrected based on new information.
1
PC AIS, p3
A document that will be distributed at the work session will summarize the land need emerging from ECLA,
expressed as a single value. This value represents Eugene’s need for land over the next 20 years given our
current policies and recent land use patterns. It is the reflection of the baseline assumptions and of the
resolution of the outstanding issues and buildable lands inventory concerns.
NEXT STEPS
While ECLA indicates that the City has a need for land, it does not mean that the UGB must be expanded by
this amount. Rather, it triggers an examination of our policies and only once this has been concluded does it
potentially result in a change to the UGB. The Envision Eugene project is the means through which we will
address these and other related topics. Several scenarios will be created as part of Envision Eugene that will
reflect the upcoming community‐wide discussion of our values and priorities for the next 20 years. One of
these scenarios will reflect the baseline data resulting from ECLA. Other scenarios will reflect any policy or
program changes desired by the community that would alter our land use patterns and overall land need.
Attachment A is a draft of a Fact Sheet that explains how ECLA and Envision Eugene relate to one another.
The components of ECLA will be formally adopted at the conclusion of the Envision Eugene process as part of
establishment of a Eugene‐only Urban Growth Boundary. This work is scheduled to be complete in February
of 2011.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Fact Sheet describing ECLA and Envision Eugene
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Jason Dedrick, Project Manager, (541) 682‐5451, jason.p.dedrick@ci.eugene.or.us
2
PC AIS, p4
FACT SHEET #1 DRAFT
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Analysis (ECLA) and how it relates to Envision Eugene
The Eugene Comprehensive Lands Analysis, or ECLA, is a study to determine how much land
Eugene will need over the next 20 years. The land need is categorized by land type, such as:
Land needed for housing
Land needed for commercial uses
Land needed for industrial uses
Land needed for parks and open spaces
Land needed for schools and government
For the purposes of this Fact Sheet, we will focus on the land needed for housing. It’s a complicated and
technical project, but it can be broken down into three simple steps:
1. The most important piece of information in making this
determination, is identifying what Eugene’s population is
expected to be 20 years from now. Eugene’s population for 1. Population growth
2030 is estimated to grow by about 35,000 people. This would
put Eugene’s total population at approximately 212,000 in the
year 2030.
2. Based on the population estimate, we can calculate the
number of additional housing units (houses, apartments, 2. Housing units
condominiums) that are needed to house these additional needed to support
people. Approximately 15,000 dwelling units will be needed population growth
to house those 35,000 people.
3. The next step is to determine how much land these housing
units will take. This land is expressed in acres. For reference, a
football field is 1.3 acres and Eugene’s current boundary 3. Amount of land
needed for additional
contains approximately 34,500 acres. ECLA tell us that xxxx
housing units
acres will be needed to accommodate those 15,000 housing
units.
This third step is the most complicated and controversial. Many different factors go into determining
how much land it will take to accommodate 15,000 more housing units. The most important thing to
note is that ECLA is focused on what Eugene’s land need will be IF we continue with the same
development trends we’ve seen over the last several years. It sets a BASELINE for what growth in
Eugene will look like IF we continue with these patterns.
PC AIS, p5
ECLA does not take into consideration new and emerging market trends or policy changes that would
influence Eugene to grow differently in the future. That is what Envision Eugene does. Envision
Eugene assumes the same population growth, and the same dwelling units as ECLA, but it explores
different options that effect the number of acres needed to accommodate those dwelling units.
Envision Eugene is an opportunity for the community to imagine different growth alternatives and say
what they would like Eugene to look like in 20 years.
Additional Land (acres)
3,000
ECLA (Baseline)
2,000
Growth Alternative A
1,000
Growth Alternative B
0
Growth Alternative C
15,000 25,000 35,000
Population Growth (new residents)
If the community chooses a growth alternative that is different than the baseline described in ECLA, the
documentation of Eugene’s land need will be revised to be consistent with the chosen alternative. The
following diagram represents this process.
Identify baseline land
need (ECLA)
Revise documentation of
Develop draft
land need to reflect
documentation of land
preferred growth option
need (ECLA)
(Envision Eugene)
Identify preferred growth Explore alternative growth
option (Envision Eugene) options (Envision Eugene)
PC AIS, p6
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
April 12, 2010
To: Eugene Planning Commission
From: Terri Harding & Heather O’Donnell, City of Eugene Planning Division
Subject: Envision Eugene
Technical Analysis Approach
Public Engagement Approach
ACTION REQUESTED
This work session is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to receive an overview of the
Envision Eugene Technical Analysis Approach and Public Engagement Approach. Key elements of
each work area are outlined below. The Planning Commission is being asked to discuss the project
and provide guidance to staff. No formal action is requested at this time.
BRIEFING STATEMENT
Guided by state law that lays out specific criteria and legal requirements, the Envision Eugene project
is planning for Eugene’s future growth. The population forecast projects Eugene’s population will
increase by 35,000 within the next 20 years. Over the last year, preparation of the Eugene
Comprehensive Lands Assessment (ECLA) has helped define our specific land needs to accommodate
this growth. Envision Eugene will plan where and how to accommodate our future needs for
housing, jobs, commercial services, and public lands like parks and schools. The Commission’s March
29 agenda packet included the project timeline and legal framework. This memo outlines the
approach to public engagement and technical analysis for the project.
Technical Analysis Approach
The technical analysis component to this work must be completed prior to August 2010 to allow local
adoption by the council’s requested deadline of February 2011. The following scope of work outlines
the work that must be accomplished during this time frame. This scope of work focuses on the key
tasks necessary to meet legal requirements, and includes the following main components:
Analysis and modeling of policy and code changes that will facilitate more dense development
within the existing UGB (“land use efficiency measures”). This analysis must include:
o Where new policies should be applied
o The likely effectiveness of each policy at reducing the land need
o The economic feasibility of potential policies
Analysis and modeling of possible UGB expansion areas. This analysis must address:
o State priorities for expansion areas that preserve farm and forest lands
o Suitability analysis to determine if the possible expansion areas are appropriate for
the types of land uses needed
o Studies of the natural resources that exist on possible expansion areas including
wetland delineations and Goal 5 analysis for level of appropriate protection
o Transportation analysis to determine what types of improvements may be required to
serve the possible expansion areas
1
PC AIS, p7
o Evaluation and cost analysis for infrastructure required to serve possible expansion
areas, including roads, water, wastewater and stormwater
o Analysis of “location factor” requirements if the amount of high priority land available
for potential expansion exceeds the amount of documented land need
The preparation of growth scenarios that illustrate various combinations of how Eugene can
grow more efficiently and possible expansion areas. Approximately 3 growth scenarios can
be modeled in addition to the base case scenario, which will represent current growth
patterns projected into the future. All growth scenarios will be represented as maps at a
gross land use level.
Additional analysis to revise/update the Economic Opportunities Analysis and Housing Needs
Analysis based on any change in policy/scenario selection, and an analysis regarding the
impact of potential re‐designations of certain properties (likely commercial properties)
Limited analysis of qualitative or livability characteristics.
Preparation of materials for adoption: A draft Eugene‐specific refinement of the Metro Plan
including a land use diagram with the precise location of the new Eugene only UGB, a parcel‐
specific land use designation for any new UGB areas and amendments to any neighborhood
refinement plan land use diagrams
There will be some need to adjust the technical approach as early tasks are completed which may
inform the need for, or scope of, potential later tasks.
Public Engagement Approach
A public engagement program is currently underway and will reach its peak of activity between April
and July. The program is designed to be inclusive, to build on recent community conversations, and
to bridge issues of past conflict in an effort to find consensus. The engagement process will include
the following components:
City‐wide postcard notification of project getting underway
Print ads, radio announcements, Op‐Ed’s, Facebook and Twitter
Email newsletter describing upcoming events and activities to interested parties
Interactive website with videos, slideshows, surveys, and project information
Focus group meetings with, and questionnaires sent to, city commissions and committees
recently involved in development issues
Community‐wide workshops generally covering three phases:
o Project Kickoff/What’s It All About
o Scenario Options and Refinement
o Creation of Preferred Scenario
Youth Outreach Activities
o Digital Art Contest for teens, “30 Seconds on the Next 20 Years.”
o Elementary classroom art projects: “Map Eugene,” “Draw Eugene.”
Community consensus building
o Listening Sessions with 150 individuals, all 19 neighborhoods, and other interested
groups and committees
o 50 person Community Group convened by the City Manager to collaborate on growth
strategy recommendations
o Community Forums on implementing the Preferred Scenario
2
PC AIS, p8
Coordination and ongoing check‐ins with Lane County, other agency partners, Planning
Commission and City Council
Formal adoption process work sessions and hearings
The public engagement approach will need to be responsive to early findings of the technical analysis
team. The components listed above are the minimum activities planned to support community
engagement in this important planning project.
NEXT STEPS
The Eugene City Council will hold a work session on April 21 to discuss the legal framework for
Envision Eugene, and to review and potentially accept the Comprehensive Lands Assessment results.
The Planning Commission will hold another work session on Envision Eugene after the first public
workshop to discuss the status of efficiency measures.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ‐
Terri Harding, Public Engagement Team Leader, terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us
Heather O’Donnell, Technical Team Leader, heather.m.odonnell@ci.eugene.or.us
3
PC AIS, p9
Get email alerts for Eugene
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.