Laserfiche WebLink
would require specific findings that assure the necessary transportation infrastructure would be in place at <br />some point during the 20 -year period. <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 />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 />Mr. Clark commented that in the past, 14 years had elapsed between the City's periodic reviews, and <br />asked if the State would now compel those reviews to occur every seven years. He asked where within the <br />City's organization, responsibility for completing reviews resided. Ms. Jerome said State law and <br />administrative rules established a schedule for periodic review, but DLCD did not necessarily require <br />jurisdictions to follow that schedule. She said the City could determine its own schedule. Mr. Ruiz added <br />that the City Manager had ultimate responsibility for assuring the City's compliance, but the Planning and <br />Development Department was responsibility for the review process. <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 <br />every potentially developable parcel and speculate on what use might occur. He said ECLA provided the <br />best estimate of achievable density within the time and cost constraints of the process. <br />Mr. Clark said his purpose in raising issues at this point was to clarify assumption and avoid future <br />disputes after a plan was adopted. <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 <br />the scope of work it could provide additional direction. <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 />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to adopt Resolution 5004 that accepts <br />the Eugene Comprehensive Lands Assessment Executive Summary and directs <br />City staff to use the estimates and data documented in that Executive Summary in <br />the Envision Eugene Project. <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 />Envision Eugene process, such as to the Santa. Clara drainage -ways. He intended to propose an <br />amendment that included the CAC's specific recommendations, along with the basic assumption, in the <br />Envision Eugene process. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include in the <br />Envision Eugene process the Community Advisory Committee's <br />MINUTES Eugene City Council April 21, 2010 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />