CC Minutes - 01/13/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

on I-5 make the amendment regionally significant; and 2) did the fact the Beltline- Gateway intersection was physically located in Springfield preclude the City from having standing even though the Beltline-Gateway intersection and Beltline to the west carried traffic that was clearly from Eugene. Mr. Kelly also noted Eugene staff's contention that ODOT studies found the northbound off-ramp from I-5 to eastbound Beltline to be operating at LOS F in the p.m. peak period. Ms. Childs responded that staff interpreted the code to mean the project must reduce the level of service on Eugene streets for there to be a demonstrable impact. Eugene's Transportation staff did not think the project would have that result. She added that staff had focused less on that criteria because of a general understanding the primary impact of the project would be on the road network immediately adjacent to the site. Ms. Childs said that the agency with jurisdiction over I-5 was ODOT. She added that she would be more concerned about the potential impact of the project if it was not for the fact the ODOT Beltline/I-5 interchange study was underway. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Childs confirmed that Springfield and Eugene shared a common UGB. Mr. Rayor liked the fact the northern half of the site was not being developed as it appeared to be a natural resource area. He asked why it was included in the expansion proposal, adding he would be more willing to opt out of the process if the expansion was minimized to the actual area needed for development. He suggested that deleting that area from the amendment would bring the UGB expansion more in contact with the Maple Island Slough environmental corridor. Ms. Daluddung confirmed that the area in question was owned by the City of Springfield and within the jurisdiction of Lane County. The natural resource area was included because Springfield staff felt the municipality could offer greater protection to the site and because its inclusion would facilitate site management and allow Springfield to treat the site more holistically. Mr. Rayor suggested that the area would be better protected from development if it remained in Lane County. Ms. Daluddung did not agree, based on Springfield's plans for the area and the current Metropolitan Plan designation for the area. She added that staff could consider Mr. Rayor's concerns in the planning process, and noted that there were many legal and regulatory considerations Springfield must address. Mr. Rayor asked if Springfield had considered alternative sites or the possibility of contracting the UGB in another area commensurate with the area of expansion. Ms. Nathanson asked if Springfield's marketing analysis assumed that Eugene residents would use the facility. John Tamulonis, Springfield staff, explained that Springfield's analysis assumed some Eugene users; the consultants believed the bulk of users would be Springfield residents stopping by the facility on their way home from working in Eugene. Traffic to the facility could be in conjunction with such work trips and would not create an additional cumulative impact. Ms. Nathanson questioned how the two cities would collect and share systems development charges for the cost of needed improvements if contiguous city boundaries were involved. Ms. Nathanson said she was inclined to support opting out of the amendment process but did not want either city to lose sight of the need to pursue joint transportation planning and funding, particularly when a project in one city created additional traffic volume on the other city's streets. Mr. Torrey stressed the need for the programs that would be provided at the sports center. He said that Eugene citizens already use the ballfields at the site. He pointed out that the sports center could attract people from around the state as well. If Eugene did not assist Springfield, MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 10 11:30 a.m.