Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

was the deletion of the parkway; the State recommended the MPC address the full consistency issue as part of a full TransPlan update. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about changes to TransPlan being proposed by Springfield, Mr. Inerfeld said that at this point, only two amendments were being proposed to TransPlan, the change in the planning horizon and the deletion of the parkway. He conceded it was possible the other jurisdictions would want to propose changes and there could be other projects added. Ms. Bettman said that was not mentioned in the AIS. She understood that Springfield was planning for periodic review and questioned how the two cities could be on separate schedules in that regard. Ms. Bettman asked if the council would know what Springfield was proposing when it next saw the item. Mr. Inerfeld said yes. Ms. Bettman opposed going forward with two temporary amendments. She said if there was no penalty to Eugene in regard to what STIP funding would provide in 2010-2015, staff had failed to make a case to move forward with the two amendments. She said Eugene needed to take a work plan to the LCDC which encompassed the amendments and the completion of what was really needed, the 2007 major TransPlan update. That could take into account Springfield’s anticipated Metro Plan amendments, the change in the urban growth boundary, and the new lands inventory information. Mr. Inerfeld said that the State wanted to see the parkway removed because it was concerned it was relied on as a planned transportation facility when land use amendments and zone changes were proposed in west Eugene. The State saw no other changes to the RTP that would have the same impact on development. Mr. Zelenka reviewed the four projects added to the RTP. He said that that Springfield had wanted to move up its intersection modernization project at I-105 and Main Street to serve the development anticipated in the Natron area, and that project would compete with the Beltline project, Delta project, and anything that came out of the West Eugene Collaborative effort. Ms. Bettman said Springfield wanted to add the two projects to TransPlan so it could compete for money. She asked if Mr. Zelenka would support a motion that directed staff to pursue the next major update of TransPlan and incorporated the two amendments into that process. That way the council could look at the projects comprehensively and weigh what they should be in light of what she termed “a lot of new information.” Ms. Bettman recalled that the State had imposed a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction on the commu- nity, and local staff had gone to the State to lobby against that and for a plan to reduce VMT, which was where nodal development came from. She called attention to page 24 of TransPlan, which listed the performance measures and how many acres the community would have zoned for nodal development and the percentages of use targets in those nodes. She said the City had failed to analyze how well it’s done in regard to those performance measures, but it had not met them. She said the City spent millions of dollars, set targets, and then failed to meet them. She was not optimistic the new effort would achieve those targets. Ms. Bettman said that staff usually cited administrative rules or statutory provisions in the AIS when it discussed relevant Federal or State requirements and asked that staff cite the relevant provision, rule, or statute when it identified something as being required by the State. Mr. Zelenka noted that the MPC had been provided with that information so it should be easy to secure. Mr. Zelenka said in the short-term, he wanted to remove the parkway from the plan and change the planning horizon. All the other issues, including HB 3337, could be moved to the larger TransPlan update, which MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 6 Work Session