Laserfiche WebLink
agree on the coordinated population forecast in the strategy, then it could not be used by individual <br />communities. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she did not see how the population allocations made a difference, but did see how planning <br />in connection with other communities was a good idea for issues like siting of a hospital or new industry. <br />She did not see the point of the strategy without Springfield’s participation and asked what restrictions or <br />mandatory actions would be imposed if the council did endorse the strategy. Mr. Yeiter replied that if the <br />population forecast was to be used for any of the City’s planning efforts it must be adopted and incorporated <br />in the Metro Plan. He said the action with least impact would be to monitor the population over time and, in <br />a few years, review trends with the other jurisdictions to determine if actions were necessary to direct <br />growth. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked how growth would be directed. Mr. Yeiter replied that actions could include more <br />effectively encouraging growth in other communities or not providing services for growth in Eugene. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon said her concerns were similar to Ms. Taylor’s. She wanted the 50,000 people in Eugene so <br />that property values would increase and the City could benefit from increased property tax collection. She <br />was not particularly interested in helping outlying communities grow and found it inconsistent with the <br />City’s efforts to be responsible and increase density. She interpreted the section on exceptions in the <br />memorandum from the City Attorney to mean that the council would be adopting a plan that would require a <br />lengthy bureaucratic exceptions process just to restore the control the City currently had over its planning <br />process. Mr. Yeiter replied that if regulations were required to direct growth, they would have to be adopted <br />in accordance with existing rules and the exceptions process was one of the rules that allowed some <br />flexibility. He said the strategy did not provide any additional flexibility from the State rules or take any <br />flexibility away. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked if the City would revert back to using historic population growth trends if the coordinated <br />population forecast was not used. Mr. Yeiter said that it would. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling asked how the figures for Springfield and Cottage Grove in the coordinated population forecast <br />were developed. Mr. Yeiter said that those two jurisdictions reverted back to historic trends. <br /> <br />Mr. Poling said he had difficulty regarding the strategy as a regional growth management tool when two of <br />the three largest jurisdictions were not involved. He said the strategy appeared to be adding another layer of <br />bureaucracy to the Statewide Planning Goals. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she regarded a recommendation from Mr. Kelly on land use issues very seriously because <br />of his expertise, but she disagreed philosophically with his recommendation on the strategy. She asked <br />which decision-making body determined what assumptions were fed into the model that produced the <br />population strategies. Mr. Yeiter said the numbers incorporated in the strategy evolved through a lengthy <br />process and many adjustments. He said the County delegated authority to the Lane Council of Governments <br />(LCOG) Board for the coordinated population forecasts now required by the State. He said that the Office <br />of Economic Analysis data was used as the basis and each jurisdiction had its own review process; <br />ultimately the LCOG Board adopted the final product. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove meant that Region 2050 was no longer <br />a regional planning process. She was concerned that the strategy was a way to move forward with land use <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />