05/27/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e In response to a question from Mr. Robinette concerning staff's rationale for expanding the boundary, Mr. Carlson said that the boundaries should include any areas that might be urbanizable within the next 20 years. He said that expanding the boundary offers an opportunity to be inclusive but does not prescribe specific transportation facilities. Ms. Bascom said that she needed assurance that the expansion would not drive local land use decisions. She said that a motion to clarify the boundary's purpose is important and that any transportation project should be included in TransPlan or in the annual Transportation Improvement Program. Mr. MacDonald wondered what effect the expansion would have on the Metro Plan update. Mr. Boles commented that this expansion will prompt pressure to expand the UGB. He said that such an expansion would not be consistent with compact urban growth and would be biologically unstable. Mr. Nicholson sug- gested expanding the urban area boundary to include only the LCC basin and the airport, and not the remaining urban reserve areas. Mr. Carlson said that there are enough future transportation projects planned elsewhere and that such an expansion would most likely not greatly affect development projec- tions. Mr. Nicholson agreed with Mr. Boles, and said that the urban area boundary suggests where future urban areas will be located. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to expand the urban area boundary to include the airport and the LCC basin, but not the three urban reserve areas indicated in the staff notes. The UGB would form the urban area boundary in these locations. Mr. Rutan opposed the motion, maintaining that the urban area boundary will not drive development because the community has strict land use policies that direct land use decisions. In response, Mr. Robinette pointed out that if that were the case, it would not make any difference whether the urban area boundary was extended, because land use decisions are required to follow those strict procedures. Mr. Carlson said that the reason the urban reserve areas were included in the expansion was because of the possibility that in the Metro Plan or TransPlan updates those areas would be included in the UGB. If that were the case, those areas may require urban services. Mr. Green expressed concern that if the urban area boundary is extended, there are no assurances that the council will not be pressured to expand the UGB. The motion failed, 3:4 (Mr. Boles, Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. MacDonald in favor). Ms. Bascom moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, that the approval of the modifications to the urban area boundary to the Eugene Metro Plan boundary is meant to define the area for Federal capital transportation funding and that any project to be funded must first be included in TransPlan and the annual Transportation Improvement Program. The motion passed unani- mously, 7:0. MINUTES--Eugene City Council 11:30 a.m. May 27, 1992 Page 4