Item 1: Southbank Bike Viaduct: Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Mr. Mott entered into the record the Portland State University (PSU) study. He noted the staff report was part of the record and included the findings adopted by the BCC in support of their amendment to the rural comprehensive plan. Mr. Cross called for public testimony. Michael Farthing , P.O. Box 10166, Eugene, represented Gordon Webb, who owned about 600 acres on the southeast edge of Springfield. Mr. Webb and Mr. Farthing were involved in the urban growth boundary (UGB) process and the population forecast was essential to the UGB process. He asked what would happen if the December 31 for House Bill (H.B.) 3337 compliance deadline was not met. He asked for a copy of the complete findings. He noted in the text of the plan amendment, the term “urban transition area” was used. He was not familiar with the term and asked for clarification. He also requested clarification of the language in the text which read: “In the event that either city needs to provide a forecast for a planning period that begins after 2010, that city shall determine the 20 year forecast by adding 20 percent of the 2030-2035 total population increment for each year beyond 2030.” He did not understand why there was a 2030 figure and 2035 figure, and thought it was a 20 year period from 2010. He was struck by the precision of the population forecast, asserting “nothing could be that precise.” He wished the figures were “fuzzier.” He added that the numbers in the 2030 column, 211,783 and 81,608, did not add up to the existing forecast in the Metro Plan of 286,000 by 2015, and questioned the consistency of the figures in the current Metro Plan and the PSU study. He assumed the PSU study and what the planning commissions were being asked to adopt was an amendment to the Metro Plan and the 286,000 figure was invalid and inaccurate and would go away. Mr. Farthing generally agreed with the findings on Attachment 1-8, Urbanization, Goal 14, but he thought the population forecast was directly related to Goal 14. He asserted the finding language that said “the proposed amendment to page I-1 is consistent with these statutes and with OAR 660.024” was a conclusion and not findings. He looked forward to following the process as it wound its way through the various governing bodies. Mr. Sullivan expressed concern that Mr. Farthing had a number of questions and Mr. Sullivan did not know whether they were all germane to the discussion. He asked if staff could respond to those questions during deliberation. Noting there were no other members of the public wishing to speak, Mr. Cross closed the public testimony for the City of Springfield. Ms. Arkin closed the public hearing for Lane County. Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing for the City of Eugene. He asked if there was a reason to keep the record open. Mr. Mott saw no legal reason to keep the record open if commissioners needed no additional informa- tion. Mr. Mott addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Farthing. Question: What happened if the cities of Eugene and Springfield did not complete the requirement for H.B. 3337? Answer: Ms. Jerome responded the statute did not specific a remedy so it would be the standard remedy under the law, which staff believed would be for someone to file a writ in Circuit Court to make the cities comply. She added that everyone was on track to complete the work and staff had every reason to believe both jurisdictions would comply with H.B. 3337 within the timeframe. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— September 1, 2009 Page 7 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County Attachment 3-7