Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

management policies were interpreted, but generally the strategy did not conflict with the idea of mixed-use centers, transit systems and higher density inside the urban growth boundary. Mr. Kelly emphasized that the strategy did not supersede anything; the only time something might be superseded was if the council adopted a Metro Plan amendment that was in conflict with one of the growth management goals. Mr. Papé noted that under the proposed coordinated population allocation, Eugene’s annual average growth rate would drop to 0.6 percent, which was lower than it had been in historic trends, and the population growth above that would be distributed among outlying communities. He asked why the rate was so low for Eugene and whether there were benchmarks that could be used to determine if the City was on target at 2010. Mr. Yeiter said one of the expectations was that if communities endorsed the strategy, they would have to monitor progress over time and decisions made about whether to direct growth more assertively if it was not distributing in accordance with the allocations. Mr. Papé asked if the population projections could be changed and whether changes would affect other elements of the strategy that were guided by population figures. Mr. Yeiter replied that the projections could be changed fairly quickly and the impact on other elements would depend on the number and extent of changes. He said the population projections would also be used by utility providers and transportation planners and if they were changed often, it would throw other planning efforts into disarray. Mr. Papé asked who made the decision to set Eugene’s annual average growth rate at 0.6 percent. Mr. Kelly said that early in the Region 2050 process, a collection of goals and objectives was adopted unanimously by all of the elected officials from all of the communities and those were used to look at local policies, community desires, geographic restrictions and other factors to develop a reasonable model for growth. Mr. Yeiter added that recent historic trends showed outlying communities were growing more rapidly and was a factor in the overall forecast. Ms. Bettman remarked that population projects and allocations were important because they would ultimately determine resource allocations. She said although there was no change in total regional population, the distribution had changed and, with that, resource distribution would change. She observed that the expansion of Coburg had wastewater, transportation and water implications and all of those required additional resources. She believed the denser, larger metropolitan areas should be the logical providers of those urban services. She was uncertain how all of those things might be affected by Measure 37. She expressed dissatisfaction with regional boards and commissions that were once removed from local decision-making bodies, citing the LCOG board as an example. Mr. Pryor commented that he wanted to be a good regional partner and thought that LCOG was a good organization. He said the LCOG board was composed of elected officials who represented their communi- ties. He thought the withdrawal of Springfield and Cottage Grove was unfortunate and perhaps based on concerns about being constrained, which was a concern he shared. He said the projections would provide guidance but also be the basis for policies and implementation of strategies. He was concerned that if not all partners were involved, the strategies might not be effectively implemented and the policies might not be adequate. He was uncertain if he would support endorsement of the strategy. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the issues that were raised by councilors and said that the Policy Board spent hundreds of hours discussing those same issues. He said when Springfield and Cottage Grove withdrew, elected officials and staff from jurisdictions had a lengthy discussion of whether there was any point in going MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 7 Work Session