Laserfiche WebLink
overlay zoning to the acreage; that did not mean that the City would have the full concept plan <br />completed but will have tools in place to help it meet the transportation planning rule requirements <br />for nodal development. She said that she thought the Department of Land Conservation and <br />Development would object to its removal. Ms. Bettman suggested that the measure be rephrased <br />as "acres of designated nodal development" so the City was not rezoning property as nodal <br />without the money to implement the concept and provide the amenities that would make the more <br />intensive nodal areas livable. Ms. Childs pointed out that the measure did not require the City to <br />change the base zone on a property, only apply the overlay zone. She said she would not <br />recommend removal of the word "zoned." <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed disappointment that the measure she suggested related to the <br />percentage of households with access to ten-minute transit service was dropped, and asked the <br />reason why. Mr. Meisner said that the issue for the subcommittee was travel to and from; the <br />subcommittee members agreed that it did not help to have access to ten-minute transit service <br />unless the bus got one where one needed to be and back. For that reason, the subcommittee <br />decided the measure was inadequate and agreed to "percent transit mode share on congested <br />corridors." He added that Lane Transit District could not guarantee transit service with that <br />frequency of service that got people where they wanted to be and back. Ms. Childs noted that <br />while the measure was not being forwarded in the measures that were designed to be an <br />alternative to the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) target, it was a performance measure included in <br />TransPlan that would be tracked. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson continued to be disappointed that the measure was dropped from the alternative <br />performance measures. She did not find the substitute adequate. If one was living in a <br />neighborhood that was not on a congested corridor and tried to reach work or shopping, it did not <br />help. She said she had to walk three-quarters of a mile to reach bus service that was provided at <br />30-minute intervals. There were thousands of people living beyond her. She lives three-quarters <br />of a mile from West 18th Avenue, a very congested quarter. She thought that three-quarters of a <br />mile was too far away for bus service. Ms. Nathanson was disappointed that the committee and <br />staff had not tried harder to develop a measure based on her concerns. She thought the <br />community needed to find a way to provide better and more frequent service so the bus was a <br />viable option. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson. He said that transit use comes from transit convenience. <br />The measure she proposed was an attempt to get at transit convenience. He had a similar <br />situation; his neighborhood was served by a bus that ran seven times daily on weekdays only. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Bettman's concerns regarding the acres of zoned nodal development, Mr. <br />Kelly said that he was persuaded to the contrary because when the nodal overlay was applied it <br />was accompanied by restrictions on incompatible uses and design standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that neither subcommittee addressed the concerns outlined in <br />the letter from Commissioner Peter Sorenson, which was not merely the voice of one person but <br />the position of the majority of the Eugene council. One of the items raised by Mr. Sorenson was <br />funding and implementation of nodal development. Ms. Childs said that the MPC would review <br />those items. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman emphasized the importance of funding for implementation of nodal development. <br />Ms. Taylor shared Ms. Bettman's concerns. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 17, 2001 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />