CC Minutes - 09/22/09 Joint Elected Officials

Home Browse Search

June 2009. The text adopted by the board was not carried forward into the text considered by the commissions. He reviewed the discrepancies involved and apologized for the oversight. Responding to a question from Mr. Ralston, Mr. Mott described the process staff used to extrapolate the population projections from the data prepared for Lane County by Portland State University. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy about whether the discrepancies represented a barrier to moving forward, City Attorney Emily Jerome indicated the elected officials could proceed with acknowledgement of the errors. Responding to a question from Mr. Handy about the impact of the discrepancy on the action taken by Lane County, Mr. Spartz did not perceive that anything that had been done affected that action, and referred the question to Mr. Vorhees, who concurred. He indicated that Lane County would have to revise its ordinance if the board accepted the intervening years and text mentioned by Mr. Mott. Mr. Handy indicated he did not object to having the matter before the board again. Mr. Mott indicated that metropolitan staff had also notified all the mayors and city managers of Lane County’s ten small cities, as well as those on the various jurisdictions’ interested parties’ lists, of the proposed breakout of the years. Ed Moore from the Department of Land Conservation and Development had indicated support but he had heard from no one else. Mr. Brown observed that he had reviewed a 1968 document prepared by the Eugene Renewal Agency that predicted that the urban population of the Willamette Valley would equal that of the San Francisco Bay area by 1985. He acknowledged that the community must make such predictions but suggested that they be taken with a “grain of salt.” Mayor Leiken noted that the document mentioned by Mr. Brown was written prior to the adoption of Senate Bill 100, and suggested it would be interesting to know what would have happened in the absence of that legislation. Mr. Handy requested a one-page document summarizing the elected officials’ next steps. Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing, acknowledging that no one had signed up to speak. Mayor Leiken thanked the planning commissioners for their recommendation. Mr. Stewart, seconded by Mr. Handy, moved to hold the third reading for the item on September 30, and leave the record open for seven days. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. The Springfield and Eugene councils agreed to hold the record open for seven days. 3. ACTION: Consideration of Alternative Public Hearing Process Regarding TransPlan Planning Eugene Senior Planner Kurt Yeiter introduced the item, reporting that the current version of TransPlan projected that the community would reach a population of 296,000 in 2015. The community had not grown that rapidly. The cities had initiated amendments to TransPlan and the Metro Plan to reflect the lower, slower growth rates at the time the two cities were pursuing the safe harbor approach. He recommended that to avoid restarting the process, staff recommend the elected officials to adopt a motion that established a process that allowed them to consider new evidence, including evidence related to that issue, when a joint public hearing was scheduled. Mr. Ralston, seconded by Mr. Pishioneri, moved to establish a process for proposed transportation MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County, Springfield, September 22, 2009 Page 4 & Eugene