Item 1: Southbank Bike Viaduct: Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

Question: What did the term “urban transition area” mean? Answer:Existing Proposed Plan Text Referring to the handout entitled , Mr. Mott explained staff was “recommending the tables included in the handout with figures for each of the years be- tween 2030 and 2035 to facilitate the completion of these projects without need to make addition- al amendments to the Metro Plan text”, as noted on the handout. He noted the term Metro Urban Area was used on the handout rather than Urban Transition Area. Metro Urban Area referred to the area between a land area between the city limits and the UGB. PSU had developed popula- tion figures for the Metro Urban Areas. Staff was proposing that the term Urban Transition Area be replaced with the term Metro Urban Area. Mr. Howe explained that there was a TransPlan RTP requirement that would be off by five years. Thus, the contract with PSU covered an additional five years. Question: What did “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” refer to? Answer: Mr. Mott explained the 20 percent solution referred to in the text “In the event that ei- ther 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” referred to the mathematical formula representing five years, and al- locating 20 percent to each of the years. Although PSU would have addressed the mathematics differently, the 20 percent solution proposed by staff was reasonable. Question: What caused the change in the Metro Plan population figure of 286,000? Answer: Mr. Mott said the 286,000 figure did go away. That population forecast was used dur- ing periodic review in 1995 for a 20 year plan. The planning horizon was changing beyond 2015, and new projections were being used. Question: Related to Goal 14 findings. Answer: Mr. Mott said the findings were perfected through the public hearing process. Hearings were not static and subject to change based upon additional information. The JEOs would adopt the findings although it was the job of the planning commissions to make recommendations to the JEOs based on findings and public testimony they receive. He added the rule was unequivocal. The inventory could not be validated for a 20 year period without a population forecast. In response to a question from Mr. Noble, Mr. Mott said the findings which Mr. Farthing thought were incomplete were those adopted by the BCC in the PSU report and coordinated figures. Ms. Jerome added said the findings were a matter of public record and had been adopted by Lane County. A more complete version would be provided to the elected officials. Ms. Brotherton explained the information before the commissioners was intended to be heads up and provide an opportunity for the commissioners to add clarification if they so choose. She noted in April 2009, the joint planning commissions held a public hearing and recommended to elected offi- cials that they adopt some amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan as part of the work plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). The work plan required that the planning horizon of TransPlan be adjusted to get in more in line with what it actually planned MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— September 1, 2009 Page 8 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County Attachment 3-8