Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka recalled that the MPC had requested that staff schedule a discussion of the subject of one plan versus two plans, and he anticipated that would occur in May. Mr. Zelenka also noted the MPC’s interest in establishing local prioritization criteria for projects. He said that used to occur, but the MPC had moved away from the process. Ms. Bettman said the council and metropolitan area had policies that prioritized preservation of the existing system over modernization, but the council, MPC, and State decisions were not consistent with that policy. She cited the local expenditure of Connect Oregon and the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act moneys as examples. She said the City’s elected leaders were lobbying for legislation inconsistent with the City’s policies. She said there was plenty of blame to go around. In addition, if the City’s systems development charges accurately reflected the cost of providing new capacity, the City would have more revenue. Ms. Bettman thought the step of determining the framework of the local Transportation System Plan and regional Transportation System Plan was a policy decision and asked how the council would make that decision. Mr. Inerfeld said that had not been worked out, but he anticipated the decision would come back to the council for action. Ms. Bettman asserted that the local community was very involved in the 1999 TransPlan update; the hearing that occurred had to be held over because there were “hundreds and hundreds” of people who wanted to offer testimony. She said that it was a monumental process that resulted in the plan before the council. She referred to Chapter 4 of TransPlan, which indicated it was due for a major update in 2007. Now staff was proposing housekeeping “tweaks” and proposing to put off the update. Ms. Solomon confirmed the timing of the next steps in the process with Mr. Inerfeld. Mr. Inerfeld said that staff did not think it made sense to do a full update of TransPlan as it was likely additional amendments would be required in response to the results of the comprehensive lands assessment. He clarified, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, the amendments did not have to be made within a year as long as the City had a work plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). He said that staff at LCDC and ODOT had expressed interest in seeing the amendments done relatively soon. Ms. Solomon was concerned about how staff was using the word “framework” given that she thought the City already had a framework in place in the form of the existing planning documents. Mr. Inerfeld suggested that the issue had to do with whether Eugene shared a local transportation system plan or just the regional transportation system plan with Springfield. Ms. Solomon thought that sounded problematic. Mr. Zelenka said it was his understanding the choices were that Eugene could complete the TransPlan update in one year or it could go to LCDC with the work plan. He did not think the update could be done in one year and he thought requesting an extension made sense. He said that House Bill 3337, which had separated the urban growth boundaries of the two cities, further complicated the matter. He reported that the MPC had asked staff to return with a proposal on how to integrate that with the planning process. Mr. Clark advocated that Eugene maintain a good partnership with Springfield in regard to regional and local transportation planning. He noted that Springfield’s elected representatives had been appointed to key State committees that oversaw transportation funding and hoped the City could continue to work as closely with those groups as possible. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Inerfeld was suggesting in the agenda item summary (AIS) for this item that the TransPlan and the RTP would be consistent after the City Council processed the two amendments. Mr. Inerfeld said no. He reiterated that the only change to the project list recommended by the State agencies MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 5 Work Session