[NLC] NLC Committee reports

[Heidi Beierle]

NLC Committee Reports 4.28.09

Infill Compatibility Standards
Committee on Sustainability
Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment

*Infill Compatibility Standards*
The ICS Task Team continues the process of putting its work into the
pipeline leading to the Planning Commission.

On Monday April 27th, the Planning Commission will hold its first work
session on motions that have been approved by the Task Team so far.  Other
motions are being refined and will be voted on by the Task Team, and
presented to the Planning Commission in May and June.

Some motions are recommending specific code language to be adopted. Other
motions are asking the Planning Commission to develop a plan, or process, to
address specific negative impacts of infill.

Meetings are being held with stakeholders and interested parties to identify
concepts that need further study and to engage stakeholders in the process
of refining solutions to the negative impacts of infill.

We are looking forward to the meeting on the 27th with Planning
Commissioners.
--Sue Prichard

*Community on Sustainability*
We held a retreat on Saturday, March 28, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. It was very
productive.
Among the "products":
-- a vision statement
-- an array of projects to tackle, including a website for storing
information about neighborhood sustainability projects, expanded bike tours
this summer, recruitment of members from non-represented NA's
-- a suggested structure outline -- how we fit in with what others are doing
in town
-- agreement to use a "ning" website for better communication

At our next meeting, (Monday, March 26), we will be setting up a work plan
and continuing to work on our operating agreements.

We had a well-staffed table at the EWEB Earth Day Celebration with many
visitors. We'll be discussing that at tomorrow's meeting as well.
--Kathy Saranpa

*Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment*
      There was an interesting development during this last month with
regard to the underlying process and/or schedule of ECLA.  The recent
meetings have focused on discussions about historical trend assumptions and
the ways in which they provide the basis for the lands determination
required of Eugene by House Bill 3337.  In the original

schedule we would have moved onto an examination of various scenarios,
sharing them with the public during June workshops.  Due, in part, to
comments, questions, critiques etc. coming from the committee regarding both
the assumptions and the process itself, the ECLA team (together with the
Planning Commission) has decided to postpone discussion of scenarios and the
proceeding public discussion and focus the next few meeting on a discussion
of the concerns raised by the committee around historical trends and key
assumptions.  This will also allow for additional City Council involvement
at this point in the project.   At this point, public workshops have been
pushed all the way to September with the intervening months spent refining
first the historical trend data

followed by a refining of the assumptions/scenarios.

      The April 2nd meeting looked first at a preliminary estimate of public
and semi-public land need.  The assumed need (for schools, parks, public
facilities and semi-public facilities) was 23.8 acres per 1000 persons which
translates into 1,094 gross acres

(for 2010 – 2030 time period).   A sensitivity analysis was done based on an
increased parkland need and a decreased public  and semi-public facilities
need with obvious increased and decreased (respectively) needs for gross
acres.

      An analysis for historical trend assumptions for employment raised
crucial questions about which safe harbor trends to use: the Lane County
annual employment growth  rate of1.4% or a Eugene population growth rate of
1.0%.  (The validity of even the population growth rate was questioned as
newer forecasts project even a lower growth rate than 1%).  Using the same
rate as the County employment forecast would result in an increase of
40,287  employees vs and increase of 27,187 employees using the same rate of
growth as the population (1%) which is a very critical difference.
Questions were raised at every step of the ECLA presentation.  For example,
the assumption that 10% of new employment will locate in existing built
space was questioned as to perhaps being to low.  The historical trend
assumptions around employment densities were also questioned.

      Questions have been raised as to whether data being presented is based
on averages, trends, projections and the need for ECLA  to make a clear
distinction for the committee.  One other recurring question involves the
validity of values used for various baselines if they don't include current
economic trends which can be assumed to have long lasting effects.

      The last trend assumptions topic on the agenda concerned residential
assumptions but we never got to it – that will be the focus of next week's
meeting.
--Carolyn Jacobs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20090427/24a7690f/attachment.html