CCMinutes - 06/14/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling referred to the project objectives for jobs and the economy, one of which was to encourage partnerships with local organizations, communities, and businesses. He urged Ms. Heinkel not to ~reinvent the wheel." He pointed to the organizations such as the Metro Partnership, which was essentially doing what the objective called for. He encouraged review of the goals and objectives to ensure they were not duplicative of other efforts. Ms. Nathanson was encouraged there was interest in a regional plan but she was also skeptical of the outcome of the process. She anticipated there would be increasing pressure for development in the area around Eugene-Springfield as the community filled in. She questioned if Eugene-Springfield could realize its vision for land use, employment, and residential development if it relied on outlying communities to modify their zoning codes. She asked if those communities would be willing to make the changes needed to realize the vision. Ms. Nathanson questioned whether the elected officials on the policy board adequately represented the sentiments of their constituents. She said there was great resistance to change in the county. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the transportation system was the key to the issue of growth. She pointed out all the scenarios would result in more development outside Eugene-Springfield, and there was great resistance from some to provide new transportation facilities. Some residents could live near their work, but jobs were mobile and frequently residents had multiple transportation needs requiring them to use a car. Residents value choice and the ability to move around. Ms. Solomon noted the Region 2050 effort was purely voluntary, and she questioned whether, if the council adopted its ultimate strategy, it would have to filter all its decisions through the strategy. She observed that all three scenarios identified the Lane Community College Basin a growth area, but there had been resistance to past development proposals in that area and they were not supported by local elected leaders. Ms. Heinkel said the State's Regional Problem Solving Program gave jurisdictions increased flexibility but did not give them latitude to act in a manner inconsistent with the statewide planning goals. All State agencies and local participants must concur on the outcome. She said in November, staff would meet with the Land Conservation and Development Commission to define how the effort would work to the benefit of the regional partners. Speaking to the issue of the Lane Community College Basin, Ms. Heinkel noted that under current administrative rules, the basin could not be identified as an urban reserve area. If the City determined the basin was a suitable area for growth, the process enabled Eugene to expand even if the area in question did not meet the letter of rules. Ms. Solomon observed the process appeared to add more bureaucracy and questioned whether there was some other way the project's goals could be accomplished. Mr. Lowe said there was much left to decide in terms of how the process ultimately worked out. He recalled that Eugene's Growth Management Study acknowledged the need for Eugene to interact with outlying communities more, and the City's participation in the Region 2050 effort was an outgrowth of that acknowledgment. He said no one really knew where the process was going, but there was general agreement in the region about the need to discuss the implications of future growth. Mr. Lowe acknowledged that the process could fall apart, and it was possible nothing would happen. However, the conversation would have occurred, and there would be more awareness about the implications of growth and even acknowledgment of the need to continue the discussion. He suggested the effort was the beginning point of a larger effort that could take 15 or 20 years to complete. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 14, 2004 Page 5 Work Session