Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 10, 2018 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />• With regard to MovingAhead corridors , there is a need for federal funding and clarity on where the City is in terms of positioning for federal funding and mix of local, state, and federal money. <br />• Concern expressed that Eugene is behind and hasn’t put forth a plan that meets current CRO goals. <br />• The CRO sets a goal for 50 percent fossil fuel reduction by 2030. Clarification requested on whether that is a legal imperative or a nice goal. <br />• Explanation requested of how the TSP would be approached if Council wanted to cut transportation SDCs in an effort to make housing more affordable. <br />• Instead of investing money on new corridors now, it would make sense to look more closely at enhanced mobility and waiting for technology to progress because it’s rapidly changing. <br />• It’s not clear that autonomous vehicles or Uber/Lyft lead to a reduction in greenhouses gases; they may actually be creating more. <br />• Consider adopting performance measures early before LCDC adopts its goals in order to track TSP goals as soon as possible. <br />3. WORK SESSION: Improvement of Unimproved Roads City Engineer Mark Schoening gave a presentation that reviewed residential land supply and unimproved roads and discussed a framework for an ordinance and the practical application of an ordinance. Council Discussion <br />• Confirmation that a funding stream would essentially be added to the CIP was requested. <br />• North Eugene has seen a large amount growth and density and there is much more development occurring than when the people originally bought their homes alongthese major corridors. <br />• Questions asked about why applicability is limited to arterials and collectors; consider expanding. <br />• Would like to explore definitions a little bit more, specifically how arterial and collector are defined and determined. <br />• Question asked about the trade-offs if council adopts this policy, including what its impacts are on what is already occurring that wouldn’t be done. <br />• Concerns expressed about equity because historically people have paid for improvements that come with new development as part of their housing costs. Adopting this policy would mean that the next group of people would not have to pay for the same improvements? <br />• Question asked about how much it would be to fund all unimproved streets that are triggered by new development and what the number would be for just collectors. MOTION: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to extend for 10 minutes. PASSED 8:0 <br /> Council Discussion <br />• The way the City has funded streets in the past has been inequitable. <br />• Question asked about a potential ordinance and what it might include from the list in the agenda packet. <br />• Concerns expressed about streets that would not qualify for improvement, for example 10 local streets surrounding a school even though it would promote safe routes to school and vision zero goals. <br />• Consider the fact that there are a high level of renters and landlords not wanting to pay to have the streets improved. <br />• Council has a lot more thinking to do to give direction on specifics.