05/27/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e III. WORK SESSION: URBAN AREA BOUNDARIES Mr. Boles explained that the urban area boundary is the boundary within which transportation projects can be Federally funded. He expressed opposition to the boundary expansion, as proposed by staff. Jim Carlson, Lane Council of Governments, referred to the memorandum included in the agenda packet. He said that the urban area boundary is solely for the determination of Federal capital funding eligibility and for the functional classification of streets within the urban area. He said that it does not determine land use or transportation planning area boundaries. Any project that would be funded within the urban area boundary would be required to proceed through usual transportation planning processes. Mr. Carlson said that staff proposes to extend the boundary to include the airport in case Federal funds are needed to improve the transportation in that area. Staff also considered transit service areas, which was a primary reason to include the LCC basin. TransPlan contains plans for a transit station located near LCC but outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). He said that Federal authorities stated that any area that may be urbanizable in the next 20 years should be included in the urban area. In this case, those areas comprise the urban reserve areas. Consequently, staff concluded that the most appropriate urban area boundary should be the Metro Plan boundary. Mr. Robinette wondered whether the boundary could be adjusted in the future. Mr. Carlson was unsure of the process by which amending the boundary would take place, but stated that the boundary is set in conjunction with State and Federal agencies. Mr. Rutan stated that it is to the City's benefit to be more inclusionary because Federal funds may be needed in the future for cer- tain projects that are currently outside the planning areas. He emphasized that proposals will still be required to proceed through local planning pro- cesses. Ms. Bascom said that the boundary can be utilized wisely if careful transportation planning is practiced. Mr. Boles agreed that it is appropriate to extend the boundary to include the airport and the LCC basin (although he thought that the LCC boundary seemed too broad). However, he strongly objected to extending the urban area bounda- ry to include all urbanizable land within the Metro Plan boundary. Despite the disclaimer in the memorandum stating that the boundary has "nothing to do with local land development policy or road standards," he stressed that trans- portation projects drive land use, often without intention. He argued that if the urban area boundary is extended, pressure will develop to extend the UGB with all the intent of delivering the full range of urban services. He said that the City already cannot afford to provide those services to areas within the current UGB. He also cited the City's goal to encourage and promote compact urban growth, and pointed out that this extension contradicts that goal. He added that Commissioner Cornacchia stated that the Lane County Board of Commissioners intends to support the opinion of the Eugene City Council. MINUTES--Eugene City Council 11:30 a.m. May 27, 1992 Page 3