Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Farr commended the work of the TRG and on behalf of the community, thanked members for their <br />efforts. <br />Mr. Clark also thanked the TRG members and staff. He determined from City Attorney Emily Jerome <br />that State law did not specifically identify the type of protections the City was contemplating for swales <br />and drainageways in the River Road /Santa Clara area although it allowed that protection to occur. She <br />anticipated staff would be looking the issue more carefully to determine how State law would allow the <br />City to consider different densities for different areas with the constraints contemplated. <br />Mr. Clark asked if the City could be faulted for counting such lands toward the inventory while <br />precluding construction on them because of the presence of swales and drainageways. Ms. Jerome said <br />that staff was keeping that issue in mind. The protections applied to such facilities were considered in the <br />densities assigned in those areas. Ms. Gardner suggested that the issues of concern to Mr. Clark would be <br />addressed through the refinement planning proposed for River Road /Santa Clara. She anticipated the City <br />would develop a tool kit that included such things as cluster development to provide protections for <br />natural features. <br />Speaking to the partially vacant lands issue, Mr. Clark asked why a market analysis was not part of the <br />committee's review. Ms. Nelson said the committee was merely providing an inventory of potentially <br />buildable lands for additional housing. Such an analysis was not a factor in that effort. She <br />acknowledged the committee had some discretion in determining the factors that supported the inclusion <br />of a site in the inventory. Ms. Gardner said State law gave the community that discretion. She said that <br />City staff worked continually to keep the State up to date on what Eugene was contemplating and to <br />determine what flexibility that existed in the project. <br />Ms. Gardner noted that Ms. Prichard and Ms. Nelson had recently accepted the Land Conservation and <br />Development Commission's Star Award on behalf of Eugene for the public involvement done for <br />Envision Eugene. <br />Mr. Duncan pointed out to Mr. Clark that the State law required the City to deal with capacity, not the <br />likelihood of development. He emphasized the importance of the monitoring called for in Pillar 7 of <br />Envision Eugene to ensure sufficient capacity existed. He anticipated that the City would be able to <br />predict the effect of new policies and regulations on the supply. <br />Mr. Farr left the meeting. <br />Ms. Jerome indicated that State law gave the City considerable latitude in regard to redevelopable land <br />and supported the direction the TRG had taken. <br />Mr. Clark asked if the monitoring that occurred through Pillar 7 would also include monitoring of <br />regional impact. Ms. Gardner said that City staff had discussed doing so with the Land Conservation and <br />Development Commission. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Gardner confirmed that the State was comfortable with a <br />range in the housing mix ratio if the City could support it with data. Mr. Clark asked if the City was <br />constrained by the range. Ms. Gardner suggested the constraint lay in how defensible the City's findings <br />were. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Brown, Ms. Gardner said staff proposed to examine the potential of <br />redesignation to ensure that land inside the UGB was being used as efficiently as possible. In addition, <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 29, 2011 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />