Laserfiche WebLink
* 15,000 new dwelling units <br />• 4,800 new dwelling units need land in excess of supply <br />• Low density — 1,244 acres <br />• Medium density — 72 acres <br />• High density -- 94 acres <br />* Commercial land — 388 acres <br />■ Industrial land — 0 acres <br />Mr. Dedrick explained that while there was no shortage of industrial land, the majority of that land was in <br />small parcels. Envision Eugene would need to consider the regional economic development plan and site <br />needs of specific industries that would be targeted in the future and that could impact the industrial land <br />need determination. <br />Mr. Clark asked what unemployment rate was assumed in the projection of 32,000. Mr. Dedrick said the <br />projection was based on the employment forecast and unemployment was factored in by recognizing that <br />some of those jobs would be located in current structures to fill vacancies created by jobs that were lost. <br />Mr. Clark felt the projection should take the opposite approach and assume that more space was needed to <br />accommodate new jobs that were needed to lower the unemployment rate. Regarding park land, he asked <br />if the City had an acknowledged refinement plan for parks. Mr. Dedrick replied that the Department of <br />Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) had indicated it was appropriate to use the PROS or Project <br />and Priority plan as the basis to establish park land need. He said one of the small groups had suggested <br />the City examine whether it needed a more formally adopted parks plan. City Attorney Emily Jerome said <br />the need for a parks refinement plan was an element of the Metro Plan update adopted by the City Council <br />in 2004; the requirement for the plan was self - imposed, not required by the State. She said the data being <br />used to determine park land need was very reliable and she did not feel a parks refinement plan was <br />necessary. <br />Mr. Clark stated that the primary purpose of incorporating the stormwater manual in the Eugene Code <br />during the minor code amendment process (MICAP) was to define drainage -ways and protect them from <br />development. He was concerned that the CAC's recommendations indicated the drainage -ways were <br />developable. Mr. Dedrick said Public `]Yorks had not yet completed the process of defining drainage - <br />ways, mapping them and setting forth specific protections. He said when that work was completed, <br />whether during Envision Eugene or after, the City would have to make findings regarding impact on the <br />land supply and if the land was determined to be unbuildable it would be removed from the buildable <br />lands inventory. <br />Ms. Piercy asked if ECLA had accounted for out - migration and a shift to higher density living as the <br />population aged. Mr. Dedrick said the Portland State University population forecast for Lane County took <br />into account a multitude of demographic factors, including in- migration and out -- migration. He said the <br />CAC also discussed density and housing choices and whether it was a moment in time when <br />demographics, housing needs and environmental concerns were shifting housing trends, but it was <br />difficult to speculate on a specific outcome. Envision Eugene would consider community housing and <br />density preferences as part of ways to meet the land need. <br />Ms. Piercy said questions had been raised about the location of industrial land and whether changes in <br />land designations were necessary. Mr. Dedrick agreed that one approach to looking at land need was to <br />examine the current land designations, particularly commercial and industrial land. <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council April 21, 2010 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />