Item 2A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would be needed to accomplish the goal of a truly parcel-specific diagram. Ms. Heinkel said she would attempt to secure a cost estimate. Ms. Bettman asked if the population projection could be characterized as clear and objective. Ms. Heinkel said yes. The methodology used went through a public process and was overseen by an advisory committee. She said that the projection was not an exact science, and a certain amount of policy was involved. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Heinkel confirmed the projection was based on the census. Mr. Sorenson determined from Ms. Wiederhold that there was no change to the number of air monitoring site in the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan as a result of the plan amendments. Mr. Sorenson expressed concern a single monitoring site might not be adequate. Mr. Sorenson noted a loss of manufacturing employment in the United States and asked if that change was being reflected in local planning documents. Ms. Heinkel said the Economic Element of the plan was not updated as part of periodic review. She said the issue was last examined through the Metropolitan Industrial Lands Study of 1990. Mr. Sorenson suggested the topic had an impact on the population estimates. Ms. Heinkel indicated she would provide the elected officials with information about the methodology used to establish the projections. Ms. Nathanson asked staff to respond to the issue of mapping raised by Ms. Jeffries. She also asked that staff provide the Eugene council with a list of pros and cons for redesignating the property owned by School District 4J as requested. She also requested staff comment on the subject of whether there should be an urban reserve, suggesting the council be provided with the minutes reflecting its initial discussion on the proposal. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ regarding the population estimate, Ms. Heinkel reviewed the methodology for the population projection and clarified there was no new estimate and old estimate; instead, the projection staff proposed to replace in the Metro Plan was for what had been formerly termed the Metro Study Area, which was based on census tracts. Ms. Bettman recalled the decision to remove the urban reserves was made previously because of the State determination they were no longer necessary, and the plan was now being amended to reflect that change. Ms. Heinkel concurred. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Heinkel said the elected officials should change a parcel's designation if the change was demonstrated to be consistent with the Metro Plan Diagram. Ms. Bettman feared that if the elected officials were to do so, others would be impelled to seek a similar change. Mr. Yeiter said the "blob" diagram made it difficult to discern the designation for the property. He said if the elected officials chose not to change the designation for the properties, the district was likely to see a Metro Plan amendment. He said that staff may offer options for the Eugene council to consider. Ms. Bettman said in such cases Eugene should be scrupulous, consistent, and fair. If such a window was to be opened, it should be open to all. Mr. Yeiter spoke to the issue of a parcel-specific diagram. He said staff differed as to the utility of such a diagram. He said there were many issues to be worked out, such as what happened when someone sought a lot line adjustment; there were currently no rules for such a parcel-specific diagram, and he asked what happened in the case of split parcel; did one designation supercede another? He said new rules and MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials February 10, 2004 Page 9 Lane County, Eugene, and Springfield