Laserfiche WebLink
the City staff resources required to process the amendments were not quantified and said she <br />would like to have an estimate of those costs. She asked at what point the council would see the <br />final list of projects to be eliminated. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if staff had received feedback from Lane County about postponing the Jasper <br />Road/South 42nd Street extension. <br /> <br />Mr. Schwetz stated that the source of funding for the planning and corridor studies would be State <br />Planning Research dollars, which were federal moneys focused on planning, so they were not <br />available for other purposes. <br /> <br />Regarding City staff resources, Ms. Childs said that in terms of Planning Division staff time, her <br />time would be reprogrammed from other work, with the consequence that the work of applying the <br />Metro Plan designation and Eugene zoning to high priority nodal development areas would be <br />delayed for a couple of months, although the work would still be done in the time frame of the <br />Transportation Growth Management (TGM) grant cycle. She indicated she would provide an <br />estimate of costs. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Bettman's question about when the council would see the final list, Mr. <br />Reinhard anticipated that the MPC would be asked to concur on a list as a starting point for the <br />TransPlan amendment process. <br /> <br />Regarding the postponement of the Jasper Road/42nd Street extension, Mr. Reinhard said that <br />County and Springfield staff were involved in the process of developing the project list. He <br />understood that Springfield City Manager Mike Kelly had indicated it would be a viable, although <br />not preferred option. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman read the preliminary project list for the benefit of the viewing audience. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner shared Ms. Bettman's concern regarding staff resources. He said it was a continuing <br />theme as the council prioritized its many goals. Regarding Attachment C, he noted ODOT's lack <br />of interest in building local connections. The parkway was intended to provide a good connection <br />from Highway 126 to the I-5 corridor, but the draft project list eliminated the Beltline improvements <br />from River Road to Delta Highway, which would result in more traffic being funneled onto the <br /> th <br />parkway and subsequently onto 6 and 7th avenues, which were already heavily congested. He <br />questioned how that impacted downtown, and if that had been considered, particularly in light of <br />the construction of the federal courthouse. Would the community need a six-lane corridor? He <br />asked if staff had determined how the postponed projects and parkway construction with the rest <br />of City projects and needs. Mr. Reinhard agreed that those issues needed to be examined, but <br />the project list was the first cut at a final list. Mr. Meisner understood, but he thought that before <br />the list was presented to the public, staff needed to do some analysis of the relationships between <br />projects in TransPlan and the rest of the city. Mr. Reinhard indicated such analysis was <br />forthcoming. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked Mr. Reinhard to more fully describe the extent of participation in the <br />development of the project list. Mr. Reinhard said that the staff group that put together the list <br />was the same group that was involved in the development of TransPlan. He said that everyone <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 28, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />