CC Minutes - 04/10/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon spoke to the draft strategy which, if adopted, created a regional compact growth scenario that encouraged more growth in the smaller communities, lower target populations in Eugene, and higher densities within the Eugene UGB. She asked if that scenario assigned specific numbers to specific areas. Mr. Kelly responded that the State law already required coordinated population allocations to be adopted at the County level, which disbursed out to the communities. In Lane County, he continued, this process was allocated by the LCOG Board of Directors. He explained that the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board only proposed a change as to where residents were distributed around the region and that this change would merely be a different way of doing comprehensive planning. Ms. Solomon opined that the process just added another layer of government. Mr. Kelly countered that the process would not add another layer as anything enacted by the Region 2050 Policy Advisory Board has no effect unless and until the constituent pieces were adopted by appropriate jurisdictions. Ms. Solomon believed there was a disconnect between this particular project and the Coburg wastewater services issue, and stressed that if Eugene moved forward with the plan, it must be faithful to that plan and every other issue before it. Ms. Solomon, seconded, by Ms. Ortiz, moved to direct the City Manager to continue the City’s participation in Region 2050 at its current levels and monitor the discussions with the State about the future of the Region 2050 project. Mr. Pape? concurred with the comment made by Ms. Bettman that Measure 37 changed the landscape in the rural areas. He stressed the importance that this component be quantified and included in the formulas. Mr. Kelly pointed to the unknown factor of how many dwelling units would ultimately be accommodated through Measure 37 claims. He said that one unknown impact was if State land use laws were repealed and a large amount of development was accommodated in the rural locations. He said that if “rural” was perceived as it was prior to the implementation of Measure 37, and one- to five-acre parcels were opened up, that still would not result in a great amount of people. However, if a Measure 37 claim could result in a 100-unit PUD on 10 acres in a rural area such an action would be a significant change. Mr. Papé? then spoke to the regionalization of services and said that with the constraints before the City, he supported such services, as taxpayers deserve a careful debate by this council on how to provide and fund services. In conclusion, he questioned if the motion before the council should be tabled until further information was clarified. Mr. Kelly countered that if the motion was tabled, he would not have a clear direction on how to present the City’s position at the April 26 board meeting. He offered that he and City staff would plan to craft a memorandum to update the council on the results of that meeting within a few weeks after it convenes. Mr. Pryor questioned if planning, regional or otherwise, would move from an advisory role, or a resource, to a prescriptive role if the draft product was implemented. He shared that one of the concerns voiced by the City of Springfield was the potential of the Region 2050 process to become prescriptive in nature. Mr. Pryor opined that the City needs to approach this process as an advisory plan rather than a prescriptive plan. He stressed that the prescriptive decisions such as local jurisdiction planning must be made by the City Council. Mr. Poling questioned how the identification of a regional growth management strategy could occur when two of the three largest municipalities have withdrawn from the process. Mr. Kelly opined that the current planning for Springfield and Cottage Grove could be taken into consideration when revising the computer model. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 10, 2006 Page 9 Work Session