Laserfiche WebLink
developed when there was no ability to increase transportation capacity. Mr. Dedrick replied that <br />transportation was a complex issue and a moving target. He said the CAC created a map of all the areas <br />that were potentially transportation-limited and examined the developable land in those areas; the product <br />was that there were not many developable acres remaining in those areas. He acknowledged that <br />development could occur in close proximity and any change in plan designations or expansion of the UGB <br />would require specific findings that assure the necessary transportation infrastructure would be in place at <br />some point during the 20-year period. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka remarked that he hoped to see a plan that was flexible and included triggers for periodic <br />reviews and possible updates. Regarding the issues that were being forwarded to the Envision Eugene <br />process, he asked how much could reasonably be accomplished during the established timeframe. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor concurred that the plan should be as flexible as possible, but asked how that flexibility could be <br />assured if the plan had to contain specific numbers. Mr. Dedrick replied that the State’s numbers afforded <br />jurisdictions flexibility through the periodic review process that allowed the community to review its <br />progress and determine consistency with its buildable land study. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark commented that in the past, 14 years had elapsed between the City’s periodic reviews, and asked <br />if the State would now compel those reviews to occur every seven years. He asked where within the City’s <br />organization, responsibility for completing reviews resided. Ms. Jerome said State law and administrative <br />rules established a schedule for periodic review, but DLCD did not necessarily require jurisdictions to follow <br />that schedule. She said the City could determine its own schedule. Mr. Ruiz added that the City Manager <br />had ultimate responsibility for assuring the City’s compliance, but the Planning and Development <br />Department was responsibility for the review process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark disagreed that the City had the transportation capacity to develop the lands it identified as <br />redevelopable and vacant. Mr. Dedrick said the ECLA process took a high level view of the scope of <br />transportation issues and how they might inhibit development; it did not allow a close examination of every <br />potentially developable parcel and speculate on what use might occur. He said ECLA provided the best <br />estimate of achievable density within the time and cost constraints of the process. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said his purpose in raising issues at this point was to clarify assumption and avoid future disputes <br />after a plan was adopted. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked for a list of the issues that would be addressed within the February timeframe and the <br />level of examination that would be possible. He said if the council disagreed with staff’s assessment of the <br />scope of work it could provide additional direction. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz said she did not assume that the City’s growth would be in a particular direction and understood <br />the process was to determine what would be the natural pattern of growth. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 5004 that accepts <br />the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Executive Summary and directs City <br />staff to use the estimates and data documented in that Executive Summary in the <br />Envision Eugene Project. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark clarified that he did not assume a particular growth pattern; his concern was the addition of <br />15,000 new dwelling units. He wanted to assure that there were certain protections afforded during the <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2010 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />