CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Projection. He added that the modeling projection was derived primarily from land capacity issues. Ms. Bettman commented that she supported such a concept; additionally, she supported “triggers” for the expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). She added that such triggers should apply to commercial as well as residential expansion and also how vehicles would be accommodated. Ms. Bettman turned to the issue of the Lane Community College (LCC) Basin and questioned why it was chosen as an area of growth due to the extraordinary costs for urban services in that area. Mr. Kelly responded that the area was considered a trade-off of certain types of land values, such as farm/forest land. Ms. Bettman voiced concern that the triggers would get lost in the process and said the criteria would need to be met before such growth was considered. In general, she stated that she did not support the regionalization of urban services, as cities were the logical providers of such service; and specifically, when services were regionalized, the denser populations ultimately subsidized projects in other areas of the region, yet there was no direct representation of those populations. She opined that a more prudent step would be for each jurisdiction to adopt its own direction. In response to Ms. Bettman’s remarks, Mr. Kelly said that there was nothing in the adopted strategies at this point that regionalized services; rather, there were only suggestions to regionalize planning for services. He stressed that the draft document could be changed as a result of comments made by the council, the Lane County board, and/or the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board. Mr. Pape? thanked Mr. Kelly for his continuity in this process. He voiced concern regarding the recent withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove from the process and questioned what the effect would be to the final document if the Regional Problem Solving Statute cannot be utilized. Mr. Pape? pondered if it was a valuable use of time and resources to continue on with the process due to these recent significant changes. Mr. Kelly responded that the advantage to the City of Eugene within the regional context would be the key to continuing or not continuing forward. He said that he would certainly ascertain the effect these changes have on the entire process and advise the council accordingly. Mr. Papé? questioned if density could be tied to how the City viewed its 20-year land supply in the formulas. Mr. Kelly said that that issue would be clarified by a legal opinion. Ms. Bettman questioned the costs of this process thus far. City Manager Taylor responded that the costs have been insignificant at this point, reiterating Mr.Yeiter’s comments regarding staff’s involvement. Carole Heinkel, LCOG staff and project manager, explained that the bulk of funding for the project has been received from local, State, and federal sources, i.e., the Environment Protection Agency, Department of Land Conservation and Development, Communities Pollution Team, Transportation Growth Management Program, EWEB, Emerald Peoples Utility District, the small cities, and the City of Eugene, which provided a contribution of $50,000 during the first year through its Public Works Department. Ms. Bettman spoke to the new variables that must be included into the equalization, such as how much growth would be accommodated outside the UGB in what was “off limits” until Measure 37 was implemented. She suggested that the City calculate Measure 37’s impact on the lands as it may merely be an assumption that 38 percent of the population could be absorbed; 15 percent of that figure could be outside the UGB. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 8 Work Session