Ordinance No. 20437 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT 3 — a® 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. Hear: ings 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 recommenda- tions 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 jointplanning 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 Commissign CLCDC). The work plan required . that the planning horizon of TransPlan be adjusted to get in more in line with what it actually planned for. It planned for a population for the transportation study area. She displayed a map which illustrated the transportation study area Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Jerome explained on Goal 8 that the City of Eugene PROS comprehensive plan had not yet been adopted and therefore there was intentionally not refe- renced in the current process. The Goal l l findings could be updated based on commissioners' comments from this meeting before the issue went to the City Council. She added there would be further discussions on Goal 11 through the Eugene Comprehensive Lands (ECLA) process. Responding to questions from Mr. VaaGondon, Mr. Mott explained that the variation between the five year increments was irrelevant. Mr. Mott added that the term "safe harbor", as ref=ed to by the Division of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) director, was the "presumed, constant portionality". He noted•DLCD staff thought the safe harbor method did not adequately track the changes that occurred in population, movements due to aging and other factors. Mr. Mott added relying on portionality of 72 percent for Eugene and 28 percent for Springfield was a simplistic approach that the state was willing to accept in the ci v where cities were in crisis and had to have a population forecast and the counties were not acting as needed. Safe harbor was premised on tha existing OEA population forecast for Lane County in 2030 to be 434,000. M and ORA agreed that was no longer accurate, asserting the Lane County population would be 420,000 in 2030. The original premise of attempting to calculate the constant portionality Arad been ratcheted. down. If the 420,000 figure had Been used, the safe harbor numbers would have been even smaller. MM TPES- -Joint Planning Commissiops— - September 1, 2009 City ofEugene, City of Springfield, Lane County ATTACHMENT - �-7 Page 7