CCMinutes - 06/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Meisner thanked Ms. Heinkel for the presentation. He expressed disappointment about the lack of participation of the school districts and the Oregon Department of Education. Ms. Heinkel assured Mr. Meisner that those parties were engaged in the process and would continue to be engaged. Mr. Meisner wished they had been involved from the beginning. Mr. Meisner hoped the regional planning effort had meaning. He pointed to the council's growth manage- ment policies, and said the council used the policies to determine if what it was doing was consistent with the policies, but did not consider how to actually implement the spirit of the policies. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Meisner's latter comments. She questioned how much of the work that resulted would supercede local policy, and how much would actually have meaning. Ms. Bettman noted the resources going into the process and expressed skepticism that the process would result in anything that would improve the livability of the southern Willamette Valley. In fact, she feared it would worsen conditions by creating so much flexibility there would be very little regulation. Ms. Bettman recommended that public outreach be very explicit in explaining that the results of moving forward with the results of the process could result in the opportunity for individuals to circumvent existing State land use laws. Ms. Bettman asked how some of the things mentioned by Ms. Heinkel in her presentation would be enforced. For example, if the region adopted the Compact Urban Growth scenario, how would development proposals outside the rural areas be addressed? Governance was also an issue for her as it appeared the process was moving toward a regional government with multiple layers of elected officials, which she thought would reduce accountability to the citizens. Ms. Bettman questioned some of the assumptions behind the scenarios, such as how constraining the urban growth boundary (UGB) would result in spillover development outside the UGB, as that did not take into account how development occurred within the UGB. A community could have a UGB and still have low- intensity development. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner about the lack of educational representation on the policy board. He asked if the University of Oregon or Lane Community College were involved. Ms. Heinkel said staff had met with University representatives and she had also taught a couple of classes on the topic, but she agreed more needed to be done. Mr. Pap~ suggested the hospitals also should be involved to ensure adequate planning was done to accommodate future health care needs. Mr. Pap~ determined from Mr. Lowe that the communities involved in the Region 2050 effort were within the commute shed of Eugene-Springfield. Mr. Lowe said communities such as Deadwood and Alvadore were represented on the policy board by the Lane Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Heinkel said there were some neighborhood association representatives who attended policy board meetings. She indicated that more outreach would be done to the rural areas. Mr. Pap~ determined from Ms. Heinkel the policy board's meetings were largely held in the Eugene-Springfield area, a decision of the policy board. Mr. Poling thought it important to stress to the public that the alternative growth scenarios were a tool for discussion, and that the ultimate growth scenario was likely to be a hybrid. He said it should also be clear to the public this was just a starting point. He suggested one result of the public outreach might be some redefinition or narrowing of the project's goals. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 4 Work Session