CC Minutes - 05/13/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rayor endorsed a process that brought all the involved parties to the table. He suggested that the issue came down to who pays, which made rural development problematic. He did not know what government agency could afford to support rural development in terms of such things as fire suppression services. He spoke to the importance of maintaining Eugene's environmental goals. He said that it did not work to "slap up clapboard" on a green field and move on. Referring to the first presentation, Ms. Nathanson expressed confusion about the terminology used and suggested, for example, that Mr. Just be consistent in his use of the term "dwellings" as opposed to "houses." Ms. Nathanson spoke to the desirability of infill development and questioned at what time redevelopment became desirable and economically feasible. She expressed interest in knowing how the State Building Code and administrative rules affected redevelopment and worked to encourage or discourage it, suggesting that the City might want to lobby the State for changes. Mr. Meisner, Chair of the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations, asked Ms. Nathanson to send him a note reminding him of her interest in the State Building Code issue. Mr. Meisner thought there was merit to having the discussions with the participants involved in the 2050 project. He hoped that the results were worth more than the paper they were printed on. The strategies would not work in the Willamette Valley if cities acted to manage growth and counties would not. He was not optimistic about the County's willingness to manage growth. He said that the City had a considerable investment in the City's Growth Management Study policies, and implementation was slow, and neighborhood resistance toward densification great. Ms. Bettman said that the issue was not whether to grow, but how to grow. She liked the way the presentation highlighted the interdependence between rural and urban growth. She said that the way cities grow had an impact on how the county grew outside the urban growth boundary. If the City had the strength to implement density with design standards, it could avoid degrading livability inside Eugene and people would not want to move to the small cities nearby. Ms. Bettman said that if the City forced migration to the periphery and outlying areas, it would destroy the agricultural industry, which was a geographic-specific natural resource. She said that the community can invest in technology jobs like any other community, but it already had the farm land resource and should preserve those jobs as well. Mr. Farr thanked Mr. Kelly for spending time on the project. He noted his concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Meisner. He said that the competition for jobs and other forms of economic development will make it difficult for the cities to work together, let alone work with the rural areas. Ms. Taylor asked why the community had to accept the idea it had to grow that much. She thought that the City could have some control with the right policies. Those policies could make a difference in how much the community grew, and how fast. She concurred with Ms. Bettman about the importance of agriculture, and said having food sources close to where one lives was part of livability. Mr. Farr said that increasing the costs of living in Eugene would also drive people out of the community. C. Work Session: Ordinances Adopting West Eugene Parkway Plan Amendments: Ordinance No. 1: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to Include the Entire West Eugene Parkway Within the 20- MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 5 Work Session