Item 1: TransPlan and Metro Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

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 for. It planned for a population for the transportation study area. She displayed a map which illu- strated 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 11 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. VanGordon, Mr. Mott explained that the variation between the five year increments was irrelevant. Mr. Mott added that the term “safe harbor”, as referred 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 circumstances 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 the existing OEA population forecast for Lane County in 2030 to be 434,000. PSU and OEA 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 had been ratcheted down. If the 420,000 figure had been used, the safe harbor numbers would have been even smaller. Mr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. Hledik, moved to recommend that the elected offi- cials approve the Metro Plan amendment shown on page 1 of the staff memoran- dum, with the amendments recommended in the provided hand-out (specifically, the amendments adding the break-out for years 2031, 2032, 2033, and 2034; and replacing the term “Urban Transition Area” with the term “Metro Urban Area”) but deleting the last sentence from the amendments recommended in the provided hand-out (beginning with: “In the event. . .”). The motion passed unanimously, 4:0. MINUTES—Joint Planning Commissions— September 1, 2009 Page 7 City of Eugene, City of Springfield, Lane County