Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regarding constrained land, Mr. Clark asked if statutes defined what “constrained” meant as it affected the <br />20-year land supply. Mr. Dedrick said some constraints were specifically identified and there were <br />provisions for partially constrained lands; for example, a portion of a lot might be constrained by Goal 5 <br />while the rest was not, compared to a lot that was fully constrained. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark asked for a legal opinion on whether there was considered to be access to partially constrained <br />land. Ms. Jerome said there were specific constraints that had to be considered, but the process was very <br />dependent on the situation of an individual jurisdiction. She said it was clear there were assumptions made <br />by jurisdictions and the contractor hired to work on the project was the premier contractor in the State and <br />would be a valuable resource to the City. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Brown, Mr. Dedrick said the project would use a safe harbor number <br />instead of the figure from PSU. Ms. Jerome said that the City would need to consider PSU’s certified <br />population figures for the area when establishing its safe harbor number; PSU’s work for the County is <br />different. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy asked if Springfield’s stakeholder groups and public involvement process were the same as <br />Eugene’s. Mr. Dedrick said the process was the same, although the committee structure was slightly <br />different. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked how TAC and CAC members were selected. He also asked which contractors were <br />involved in the project. Mr. Dedrick replied that lists of potential members were developed by staff based on <br />those stakeholders, interests and expertise that should be involved in the process. Entities were then <br />approached and asked to designate a representative to participate. Three at-large positions on the CAC were <br />open to the community through an application and selection process. He said contractors were ECONorth- <br />west, LCOG, the Ulum Group and other expert consultants that were used on an on-call basis to address <br />specific issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka said he was looking for an emphasis on density and redevelopment and reuse of land within the <br />urban growth boundary (UGB). Mr. Dedrick said the assessment was going beyond statutory requirements, <br />such as defining housing types as that would be critical to redevelopment. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy remarked that asking neighborhoods to absorb a certain amount of density was not working; it <br />was necessary to consult with neighborhoods to determine the type and location of density that was <br />appropriate. She said the West Eugene Collaborative was having robust discussions of density and <br />redevelopment. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked who chose the at-large members of the CAC. Mr. Dedrick said they were chosen by staff. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said there used to be a Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) that made those decisions and she <br />wished it was still in existence. She asked how much was being spent on consultants. Ms. Muir explained <br />that when the CIC was eliminated, the Planning Commission took on that function and had advised staff on <br />the entire community engagement component of the process. Mr. Dedrick said $280,000 of the project <br />budget was for consultant services and the City had received a $100,000 grant from the state to offset those <br />costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 23, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />