Laserfiche WebLink
March 3, 2009 <br />Joint Elected Officials Meeting <br />City of Springfield <br />City of Eugene <br />Lane County <br />Page 5 of 11 <br /> <br />Commissioner Handy discussed the economic opportunity analysis Springfield was undergoing and how <br />it related to nodal development. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott said the analysis regarding commercial and industrial inventories assigned a certain level of <br />employment opportunities to nodal development sites. The number of sites the City currently had <br />achieved some satisfaction of that demand. Other sites could be designated to accommodate. He <br />explained some of the factors that could affect nodal sites, such as transportation. The residential lands <br />study also attributed a certain development with minimum flow. <br /> <br />Councilor Pishioneri said the presentation made a lot of sense. The Metro partnership was important and <br />he didn’t want to lose sight of that. The key was to get through the five issues and get rid of some of the <br />clumsiness of the Metro Plan by way of refinement plans. That allowed each city entity to retain some <br />control while still meeting the needs of the whole. He felt they could eliminate the current issues through <br />refinements plans. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dwyer said three or four years ago, the County Commissioners sent a letter to the cities <br />with fifteen important questions and did not get a response. They were now dealing with those issues. <br />They talked about the preservation of farmland, but the Metro Plan had saved no farmland. In order to <br />preserve farmland, they needed to get rid of the phrase ‘developed and committed’ from the Metro Plan to <br />allow the City the latitude to allow a producing farm to exist in an urban setting. He felt the Department <br />of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) did not support that concept. The cities didn’t want to <br />amend the Metro Plan so the cities would collect the park SDC’s inside the UGB, but they wanted control <br />over building and development in those areas. They needed to walk the walk and have a plan of what the <br />problems were. The cities needed to work with the County to meet their needs and not just the needs of <br />each city. He discussed the concept of charging the citizens for highest and best use and how that didn’t <br />encourage use other than development. He felt the system was broken. He would prefer to identify two to <br />three things over the next 6 months, then two or three more, and put some time constraints to address <br />those issues. He wanted to identify how farmland could be preserved. He felt Eugene was the biggest user <br />of farmland in the Willamette Valley and would like to find ways to preserve that land. He was unhappy <br />with the process. <br /> <br />Councilor Taylor said the system was broken and they needed to rebuild farmland. She thought the most <br />important thing they could do was save farmland and put rural reserves into place. They would need food <br />close to the people. She didn’t understand increasing the UGB because they would eventually all meet up <br />with each other leaving nothing in between. She recommended two books, Geography of Nowhere and <br />World Made by Hand. <br /> <br />Board Chair Sorenson asked about the relationship between the Metro Plan and new legislation that had <br />been introduced to create an Area Commission on Transportation (ACT), which the State may require. <br /> <br />Mr. Mott asked Transportation Manager Tom Boyatt to respond. <br /> <br />Mr. Boyatt said there was no legal relationship. There was not a requirement in the law for ACTs to be <br />created, but it was something the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had been promoting. It <br />was another way to coordinate transportation decision making at the programming and project level. <br />There might be some policy overlap. <br /> <br /> <br />