Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dedrick provided a brief summary of the partial constraints that characterized certain portions of the lands in <br />the buildable lands inventory. He further noted that after taking into account those available lands with partial <br />constraints and in conjunction with the respective land demands for employment, housing and public use, there <br />was actually a surplus of available industrial land and a deficit of available commercial land. He summarized <br />that detailed analysis regarding the precise amount of available land was ongoing and that more accurate figures <br />regarding the same would be provided at the council's October work session. <br />Mr. Dedrick briefly listed the next steps involved in the ECLA process for the benefit of the council and further <br />described the City staff plan for the final ECLA product which would assume the form of a motion presented to <br />the council affirming that the City of Eugene had met the requirements of House Bill 3337. <br />Mr. Clark thanked Mr. Dedrick for his presentation and noted he would need further clarification regarding the <br />City's obligations under HB 3337, specifically with regard to what portions of the ECLA process were required to <br />be completed by the end of 2009. <br />Mr. Clark commented he had heard from individuals who questioned the reliability of the data used in the ECLA <br />process. He further noted that if adoption of the ECLA findings was not required by December 31, 2009, then a <br />specific timetable for how the ECLA process would affect City policy would be required for him to support any <br />acceptance of the staff report. <br />Mr. Clark indicated his understanding that the CAC had ultimately advocated for the removal of all wetlands <br />within the UGB from the buildable lands inventory regardless of their current development status or partial <br />constraints. He noted that he agreed with the determination of the CAC and agreed that the wetlands should be <br />completely protected and not categorized to be any part of any available or vacant lands. <br />Ms. Piercy asked for further clarification regarding the classification of known wetlands within the UGB. Mr. <br />Dedrick noted that the three classes of wetlands within the UGB were: 1) the West Eugene Wetlands Plan <br />Wetlands, 2) the Goal 5 wetlands; and 3) the local wetland inventory wetlands that had been inventoried as part of <br />the Goal 5 process but had been excluded from the Goal 5 protections. He noted that it was completely within the <br />purview of the City of Eugene to determine if the wetlands should be removed from consideration under the <br />ECLA process, but that there was no definitive current City policy that exclusively prohibited development on all <br />wetland areas within the UGB. <br />Mr. Dedrick, responding to a question from Ms. Piercy, stated the local wetland inventory predated Goal 5 <br />policies and that while certain wetlands were not specifically protected under Goal 5, those lands remained <br />classified as wetlands and subject to State protections regarding the same. <br />Deputy City Attorney Emily Jerome, responding to a request for clarification from Ms. Piercy regarding language <br />contained in staff's agenda item summary materials, noted that the City of McMinville had similarly struggled <br />with issues relating to available land classifications and protections. She further noted that should the City choose <br />to adopt a plan to use land not within the current UGB, the City would correspondingly be prohibited from <br />adopting said plan as it violated State statutes and goals that mandated a sufficient supply of buildable lands <br />within the UGB. Ms. Jerome summarized her remarks and noted, "You mustn’t adopt a plan that says you have <br />demand that's not met." <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />