12/22/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Manager explained it is hoped to meet the schedule for alternatives selection by making a decision at the December 22 Council meeting, at which time there will be a full Council discussion but no public hearing. Mr. Porter, Planning Director, noted Planning Commission chairman Alan Maxwell will be present at the December 22 meeting to answer questions and provide input. Mr. Williams e requested copies be provided Council of the December 15 Planning Commdssion meeting. A question was raised on time.frame, and ,Planning Director responded commitments have been made by the city to other agencies to do the master planning in this budget year with final plans made next August. A decision from governmental bodies is desired as soon as possible bvt there is no deadline at this juncture. Mrs. Shirey wondered what happens if the different jurisdictions do not concur on a plan. Planning Director responded there should be an attempt at the pol i ti.cal level to resol ve differences, in order to prov.i..de for a "metropoli tan" transportation plan~ As Mayor Anderson pointed out, it is actually an LeOG proposal so it will be their task to submit the final alternatives. Manager noted that, if the political leadership is at great odds, he did not see how LeOG could proceed with a decision and how funds could be invested for a transportation system not favored by all. He further commented that, until recently, December 31 was the deadline for completion of the final plan but, for various reasons, the Federal Government is willing to recertify without a final plan, if some real progress is shown in rroving toward the final goal. Mr. Murray wondered if it is necessary that all elements of the transportation plan be uniform between the two cities. Mr. Gunsler, project director, stated regulations say there must be an areawide comprehensive plan adopted. It does not necessarily mean complete uniformity. For instance, Springfield could have a somewhat different scheme; but Mr. Gunsler does not see how it would be e possible for it to vary too greatly because of the interaction between the transportation systems of the two cities. It would not seem feasible to have 30% transit in Eugene and 10% or less in Springfield, he added. Mrs. Shirey expressed concern in that she cannot see sacrificing the goals, if another city wants less ridership, to which Mr. Gunsler replied that it would be extremely difficult for the two cities to act independently of one another. Also, Federal regulations require that there must be an area-wide plan adopted. Mayor Anderson commented that it would be an unusual coincidence if all jurisdictions in a master transportation plan came up with the same ideas on ridership, etc. It is important to remember, he continued, that somewhere along the line a comprehensive plan must be developed to meet the obligations. Blind opposition to other schemes will not result in any progress. Each jurisdiction must try to accommodate the feelings of the other and work them into the overall scheme. An attempt to take a hard and fast position when working toward a comprehensive plan would be extremely unfortunate, he concluded. Mr. Bradley wondered if LCDC had any jurisdiction should LeOG not arrive at a uniform plan. Mr. Porter responded that they ultimately would. It is an element of the general plan. HH. Review of Growth qtudy Proposals - Council has received memo from Planning Director Conun dated November 24, 1975, suggesting ideas for developing a plan of study. It 12/17/75 would concentrate more on growth management techniques and systems rather than File the effects of growth. It is suggested that the recommendations in that memo be submitted to the individual members of the Community Goals Committee for their review, comment, additions and corrections. A final staff proposal would then be e drafted to go to the City Council regarding the way in which the city might proceed with ,limited growth studies. 12/22/75 - 16 0fa<f