Laserfiche WebLink
drainage ways. He asked if the Capacity Analysis included protection of some of those drainages and could <br />the mapping work already done on that area be used to identify sections for possible protection. Mr. <br />Dedrick said the natural drainage ways was an issue raised by the CAC. He said consultation with Public <br />Works and the City Attorney indicated the areas were not prohibited from development. Whether there was <br />a policy intent that was not codified in a way that prohibited development of those drainages was an area <br />that had not been encompassed by the ECLA process. He said the data collected by the neighborhood would <br />be helpful. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said he was interested in the difference between net and gross acreage and understanding how that <br />impacted recommendations. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon also expressed an interest in data on the percentages of LWI wetlands in public and private <br />ownership. Mr. Dedrick said his presumption was that all of the acres identified were in private ownership <br />or they would have been excluded from the analysis. He confirmed that the assumption was 50 percent of <br />the privately owned wetlands could be developed. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon cautioned that developing wetlands could encounter barriers that would make the 50 percent <br />development assumption too high. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor commended staff for seeking input from a wide range of perspectives. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mr. Pryor. He asked for clarification on the next steps of the ECLA process. Ms. <br />Gardner said efforts would be focused in the next three weeks on identifying the core pieces of the technical <br />assumptions and methodologies that needed to be corrected with a goal of beginning to produce the right <br />final product at the beginning of December, while meeting the intent of HB 3337 by December 31. Mr. <br />Dedrick said he would be asking all CAC members what issues were critical to address by early December <br />and what issues should be captured by April 2010. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka encouraged planning that built in flexibilities that could accommodate uncertainty in the future <br />rather than single-line planning. Ms. Gardner agreed that it was preferable to maintain as much flexibility <br />as possible instead of debating absolutes. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy commented that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) wanted more <br />frequent updates on the ECLA process and that would perhaps result in the City being given more planning <br />flexibility. Ms. Gardner agreed. She said that formal updates would be made to the commission, but <br />informal updates were also being provided more frequently at the staff level. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark remarked that redevelopment affected areas of the City differently. He asked if data on potential <br />redevelopment rates by neighborhoods was available so the council and public could understand the impacts <br />of decisions. Mr. Dedrick responded that the additional planning time would allow for the discussion of that <br />type of information. <br /> <br />D.CONSENT CALENDAR <br /> <br />A. Approval of City Council Minutes of June 22, 2009, City Council Meeting; September 14, <br />2009, Joint Elected Officials Meeting; September 14, 2009, Work Session; September 16, <br />2009, Work Session; September 91, 2009, Public Hearing; September 22, 2009, Joint <br />Elected Officials Meeting; September 23, 2009, Process Session <br />B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 9, 2009 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />