Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey reiterated his long-held belief that the council made a mistake in rejecting a prison <br />site in Eugene as now the prison was to be located in Junction City, which would result in <br />extensive strip development along Highway 99 between Junction City and within one mile of <br />Eugene. He pointed out that there were plenty of places to locate big box development along <br />Highway 99. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that at one time she had deferred to the RAC as she considered it a balanced <br />committee, but because of attrition and staff changes, she contended that the RAC was now was <br />"very much dominated" by the development community, leading to the recommendation that no <br />adjustment be adopted. Ms. Bettman said that if complete understanding about the modeling <br />underlying the SDC was required by councilors, they would never reach a decision. The <br />transportation SDC methodology took two years for the RAC to complete and it was very complex. <br />She believed the modeling showed that the further from the core development was, the more <br />new capacity was needed. That infrastructure was not in place now. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that regarding the issue of downtown, the fact that people have to drive five <br />miles from the periphery to reach downtown had more to do with the fact that development was <br />allowed that far out within the urban growth boundary, and the City had to build roads to serve it. <br />She said that new development has a claim on capacity whether the capacity existed or not. She <br />said that the issue was not about raising more money or charging more but about recovering the <br />money that the City already invested or had to invest in new infrastructure. Ms. Bettman said that <br />the SDC, even if it included a geographic component, did not come close to 100 percent cost <br />recovery. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly noted that other jurisdictions have already implemented a location-based adjustment so <br />the concept was not unique to Eugene. For example, Springfield assessed lower SDCs for <br />downtown development. He questioned when the council would take a concrete step toward <br />realizing its Growth Management Study policies, as it was now five years after their adoption. <br /> <br />Regarding the concerns expressed by Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Farr regarding the lack of correlation <br />between development and impact, Mr. Kelly noted that the discussion in the AlS indicated that <br />average trip lengths are about 15 percent lower than the systemwide average in the inner core, <br />and about 14 percent higher than the average in the periphery. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Mr. Rayor there were other places where SDC adjustments could be used as <br />a planning tool. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed puzzlement about Mr. Meisner's remarks about downtown as traffic attractor. <br />He agreed that there was an impact, but suggested that the idea of focusing on downtown was <br />that, instead of having to build capacity throughout the entire community, the City could build <br />capacity on arterials going in and out of downtown. Mr. Meisner suggested that Mr. Kelly defend <br />that impact to Jefferson area residents. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor thought the density of development downtown lowered the cost of service to that area. <br />He supported the geographic adjustment as a way to support downtown development. He <br />advocated for the adjustment to be revenue-neutral. He reiterated his interest in having further <br />PDD analysis. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner regretted the lack of committee minutes as background for the council's discussion. <br />He wanted to have such information. Mr. Meisner asked if the committee and staff had looked at <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />