02/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e/ Public Works Director noted that Eugene does not have the controlling vote on either the Citizens Advisory Co~ttee or the Transportation Planning Commdttee but, if proposals are not accepted, it does not preclude staff from addressing their needs in the form of a refinement plan for Eugene. Mr. Williams, in attempting to clarify the methodology to be used for a 15% transi t system, saw two immediate impacts: 1 . There would be a net reduction in the number of interzonal trips which would reduce the need for highway construction; 2. There would be substantial tilt in 1990 towards a balanced land use concept. Mr. Guenzler agreed those were two legitimate impacts and also noted some fairly strong sidewalk policies would be necessary. Accepting a particular goal causes reduction in other areas but also requires a means of implementing that goal. Mr. Bradley wonde~d how to assure that Eugene's concerns are built into the regional plan. He sees the possibility of a co~ttee dictating what the Council would like to happen in Eugene. Mayor Anderson reminded him that the elected officials would be making the final deterrndnation. In answer to a question from Mr. Bradley! Mayor. ~derson noted that the plan, under federal requirements, must be coordinated regionally-but not necessarily be uniform. He further added that the whole matter is a technical one, not simply political. It is impossible to bring extremes together without some give and take. He noted that Eugene has not given much, that Springfield has made a drastic change, going to 10% from their original stand of 0% increase in transit. e Mr. Guenzler explained that the planning comndttees would not purposely ignore the goals of one jurisdiction. It should be realized, however, that, when goals are accotrl1OOdated with respect to another juriSdiction, it is assumed they are the goals of that juriSdiction. If it is not feasible to implement them regionally, then a detaiLed plan can be adopted for a particular area. In other words, he said, the regional plan could accol1l1lJXlate goals without specific ways of implementing them. 1Ir. Murray reiterated his concern, wondered if any document coming out of the transportation committee meetings would make it clear that for Eugene there will be additional breakdowns for bike, pedestrian and paratransit and that Eugene has some commi tment to those. Mr. Guenzler answered that any plan would reflect Eugene's concerns. But Mr. Bradley said he had voted for the 15-5-5-5% split as regional goals and now he understands they are goals only for the city of Eugene. . He would like Council feedback at some point on whether they felt those percentages should be regional when they voted for them. Comm 1/28/76 File No action was taken. e Q.Status Review on Eugene Zoning Code Conflicts with 1990 Plan - Council has received DIem dated January 26 from the Planning Department and the Acting Ci ty Attomey relating to two issues: 1. The general ques1!'ion invol ving the intent and purpose of the General Plan specifically within the context of the Baker vs. Milwaukie decision and what was reasonable posture relative to application of the General Plan in view of that court decision; and 2. the request to initiate rezoning at the Edgewood Shopping Center, changing it from C-2 to C-l. 81 2/9/76 - 25