CC Minutes - 08/14/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

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 forward. He said the unanimous decision to move forward was based on many reasons, including the fact that Springfield and Cottage Grove were involved in drafting most of the strategy, their staff was still involved and their elected bodies would have to adopt the coordinated population allocation, which left those communities’ figures at historic trends. He said the City already used population numbers and those drove many policies, models and analyses; the new numbers would drive those same processes but for Eugene, the numbers would be much more in keeping with its growth management policies. He pointed out that even for the modest growth proposed for Eugene the City’s average residential density would have to be increased by 25 percent. Continuing, Mr. Kelly indicated that if the council did not endorse the strategy and took no further action, the City would continue to operate under historic trends and the current Metro Plan, which he believed would make it more difficult to achieve growth management policies. He pointed out innovations in the strategy that added tools such as tying urban growth boundary expansions to achievement of particular residential densities. He asserted that the strategy did not add a layer of bureaucracy as there was no ongoing Policy Board and the strategy would be implemented by jurisdictions in exactly the same way they now operated, but with a regional framework. He agreed with Ms. Bettman’s comments about shifting resources but pointed out that when a new person moved into the area, regardless of the community, there was a cost to the region in terms of utilities and transportation. The best way to provide services and pay for them could be discussed as a region. Ms. Piercy spoke in support of endorsing the strategy and commended the efforts of regional partners over a lengthy period of time. Mr. Papé asked if Springfield and Cottage Grove could adopt population forecasts developed using their own approved methodologies instead of adopting the coordinated population forecast. Mr. Kelly explained that the total regional population projection was no different than historic trends; only the distribution among communities was different. He said Springfield numbers were based on historic trends that still added up to the total for the region. He noted that population projections at the State level were required to be adopted by counties; the coordinated population allocation that Lane County would adopt included Springfield and Cottage Grove numbers based on historic trends and numbers based on Region 2050 modeling for other communities. Mr. Pryor asked if Eugene would fall into the same category as Springfield and Cottage Grove if it declined to endorse the strategy. Mr. Kelly replied that the Policy Board would not adopt the strategy and all communities would be in the same situation. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to endorse the Southern Willamette Valley Regional Growth Management Strategy, dated August 31, 2006. By this endorsement, the City of Eugene agrees to use the goals and objectives and Re- gional Growth Concept embodied in the strategy document, including the coordi- nated population allocations, as a tool to guide growth and development. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 8 Work Session