12/03/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

aberration from a long-term trend of regular growth. He also said he thought e that if the late 70s were a time of aberrant growth, nothing should be predicated upon those years, and instead the long-term trend line should be used. Mr. Gordon said an attempt was being made to drop use of any specific year, adding that MAPAC had recommended a new fundamental principle as a result of several discussions by it and MPC about growth trends in the area. He said the growth patterns of the late 170s and the recession of the early '80s had tended to counterbalance one another and to put the rate close to l-COG1s projected trend line. Mr. Gordon said although the direction of future growth was unknown, the plan was being designed to aim for land needs of a population level of 293,000, regardless of the year that level was reached. He also said the change in the policy on the monitoring period for projections called for maintaining a six- to ten-year supply of residential land. He noted that the time was needed to prepare raw land for development by rezoning, making improvements, etc., and he added that staff had intended only to make the projections more statistically accurate. Mr. DeFazio said using the period six- to ten-years ago would include only the years 1976 through 1980, which was a period of aberrant growth. Mr. Gordon said those figures would be balanced by more recent figures. Mr. DeFazio asked why longer term figures would not be used. Mr. Ivey said the year for the population projection might be uncertain, but a timeframe still existed for the plan. Mr. Gordon said a mathematical time- e frame of 20 years was used for the projections, but it was believed that the population figure would be reached eventually, and the emphasis of the plan was not to meet the projections for the UGB in exactly the year 2000. Ms. Wooten said she disagreed completely with the population forecasts and she thought they should be reconsidered by the three jurisdictions before any final action was taken on the plan, because of problems they would cause con- cerning flexibility in capital improvements planning. She also asked for an explanation of why MAPAC and MPC had chosen not to do a survey of archaeologi- cal resources. Mr. Gordon said Mr. Silvermoon and others at the University of Oregon had submitted a 50-page report on archaeological resources of the metro area. He said MPC had been offered options to consider amendments during three timeframes: the Mid-Period Review, future studies, or the next update, and MPC directed staff to consider archaeological resources during the Mid Period Review only if time existed for development of a working paper. He said an attempt had been made to develop some policies in conjunction with the archaeological resources working paper. He said some difficulties existed in locating archeological resources and in funding inventories. He also said the Eugene Planning Commission had discussed the reactive/active role mentioned by Mr. Silvermoon, adding that members had expressed concerns both about archae- ological resources and about economic development, but the expertise and con- sensus did not exist among governments and staff on methods. Mr. Hansen suggested discussing population projections in conjunction with TransPlan. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 6