Laserfiche WebLink
constrain the community in achieving more than the benchmarks set out. Mr. Kelly said it was not <br />his intent to constrain the community but to indicate that if the targets could not be achieved, why <br />bother to go forward? <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Schwetz said that he did not think the Department of <br />Land Conservation and Development would object to the amendment. The department was <br />supportive of the alternative measures. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked about the intent of the amendment and how the other adopting jurisdictions <br />would interpret the amendment. She thought it a statement intended to send a political message <br />to the other jurisdictions, and suggested the same message could be delivered in a letter from the <br />mayor or council president. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said the subcommittee had discussed the measures and numbers associated with <br />the measures a great deal and had adjusted some upwards out of concern they would be reached <br />too soon. At the same time, the subcommittee discussed how to establish numbers that were <br />realistic goals. He did not think the subcommittee would be uncomfortable with having those <br />numbers remodeled before adoption, which was all the motion called for. He did not think it would <br />send a negative message to the other jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that it was his intent through the motion to ensure the numbers "held together." <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that the Department of Land Conservation and Development would require <br />evidence before it acknowledged TransPlan as being compliant with the transportation planning <br />rule that the document had the components included in the measures. She suggested that the <br />phrase "will request evidence" might be more appropriate than "will need evidence." With Ms. <br />Bettman's agreement, Mr. Kelly incorporated Ms. Childs' suggestion into the motion. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Childs said that staff would know if the numbers <br />worked before it brought TransPlan back for adoption. She thought the model would indicate the <br />targets could be achieved. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart said that in speaking with the City's partners in TransPlan, he had already heard of a level <br />of distrust toward actions the council had taken in isolation. He said that he would vote for the <br />motion but thought the council should "tread carefully" from this point forward or risk losing the <br />cooperation of its intergovernmental partners. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed, 7:0. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman expressed concern about the target of 1,000 of acres of zoned nodal development <br />by 2005. She thought it would create an incentive to rezone a lot of property to nodal. She said <br />that some of the strategies for nodal development could be implemented and some could not <br />because there was no money available. She thought the target could be removed completely, or it <br />could be changed to "acres of zoned nodal development with funding allocated for <br />implementation." <br /> <br />Ms. Childs said that the number could be removed but the community was required to implement <br />nodal development within three years after the adoption of TransPlan; it seemed appropriate to <br />take credit for that through an alternative measure. She said it was also important to remember <br />that the way the target will be measured was through the application of the designation and <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />