Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Bettman asked if it was possible for staff to look into having different strategies for different geographi- <br />cal areas of the City. Mr. Schoening replied that it was possible. He pointed out that existing standards did <br />have different strategies for different areas of the community. He cited standards for the south hills, as an <br />example, which required flow controls because of the steep gradients and the erosive soils and noted that <br />those standards were not required in other parts of the city. He said he would not characterize the standards <br />as “one-size fits all.” <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman noted that Puget Sound utilized consultants and asked if the City intended to hire consultants. <br />Mr. Schoening responded that because the Puget Sound interdisciplinary team had done the work in 2005 <br />and the consultants would be conducting this work with another group in 2006 and in 2007 and all of the <br />work would be published, staff believed the work could be completed internally. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor recalled an all-day session that she attended on swales and impervious surfaces. She assumed <br />that all of that information was still available. Mr. Schoening affirmed that it was. <br /> <br />The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br /> <br /> <br />B. WORK SESSION: <br /> <br />Update on Commercial/Industrial/Residential Land Studies <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor stated that this was a requested work session for an update on the City’s commer- <br />cial/industrial/residential land studies that had been postponed from December. He asked Acting Planning <br />Manager Lisa Gardner and City Attorney Emily Jerome to discuss the item. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner stated that attachments in the AIS included a memorandum from the City Attorney’s Office to <br />convey the attorneys’ assessment of the City’s compliance with State requirements and to give a status <br />report on the current inventories, a memorandum prepared by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), a <br />rough scope of the work – a “quick assessment” of the work tasks that could be undertaken and order-of- <br />magnitude costs. She said if there was direction to look at a land inventory update, the first thing to do <br />would be to put out a request for qualifications (RFQ) to obtain a detailed scope of costs. <br /> <br />Ms. Gardner said there were three components to the buildable lands discussion: 1) the data which was a <br />snapshot in time; 2) getting a handle on what acreage was commercial, industrial and residential and how <br />staff was adding or subtracting the acreage accordingly so that it could be used in a user interface tool; and, <br />3) the compliance component. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there was a compelling reason to keep the memorandum issued in December <br />confidential. Ms. Jerome replied that at the time the memorandum was prepared there was an appeal period <br />that was “still alive.” Since that period had passed and no appeals had been filed, she indicated that she had <br />less concern about releasing the memorandum. She said if the council wished to direct her to do so, she <br />could remove the confidential stamp from the memorandum and release it to the councilors later in the <br />afternoon. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to make public the interdepartmental memoran- <br />dum from the City Attorney dated December 6, 2006, with the subject heading: Inventories of <br />residential/commercial/industrial land. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />