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

Home Browse Search

was the first to come to the Eugene council after modifications were made to the process used for Metropolitan Plan amendment referrals; up to that time, any plan amendment had to be considered and adopted by all three jurisdictions. Process revisions to streamline and simplify the process were adopted in 1995; those revisions included a provision that allowed a jurisdiction to "opt in" in participating in amendments to another jurisdiction's UGB. Ms. Childs said that to opt in, the council had to make findings of regional impact based on specific criteria in the plan and the City Code. Ms. Childs said that in 1995 the Springfield City Council had initiated the amendment proceedings for a site outside the UGB on which it wanted to locate a sports center. The Springfield council referred the amendment to Eugene for action, and the Eugene council had concluded it had insufficient information to determine whether the amendment met the regional impact criteria because no traffic impact analysis of the site had been done. To keep its options open, the council adopted a resolution that allowed it to opt in, and agreed to reconsider the action once the traffic impact analysis was completed. Ms. Childs said that the traffic impact analysis had been done, and had been submitted to the council as the basis for reconsideration. The analysis, on page 83 of the council packet, indicated that for both the "no build" and "build" scenarios, with mitigation, the level of service (LOS) on key intersections does not fall below LOS D. Mitigation included limiting the size of the facility and signal timing. Anything below LOS D would trigger an amendment to TransPlan and signify regional impact. Ms. Childs believed the traffic impact analysis provided the facts and documentation the council needed to rescind Resolution 4469. Ms. Childs highlighted two issues. The first was a general recognition that there were traffic problems and issues in the Beltline/l-5 area. As a result, the Oregon Department of Transportation (©D©T) was conducting a study of the area and would make recommendations regarding projects. She noted there was a project in TransPlan related to reconstruction of the intersection. Ms. Childs clarified that ©D©T's effort was independent of the sports center, and the evaluation of the traffic impacts for the sports center must be specific to that facility. She said the council could not attempt to solve all the traffic problems at the Gateway area on the back of the sports center proposal. The second issue highlighted by Ms. Childs was the need for the proposal to satisfy the criteria for an urban growth boundary expansion established by the State. She said there had been a considerable amount of analysis produced as a result, and suggested that even if it chose to opt out, the council might be interested in seeing those reports to become more familiar with the level of detail needed to make the case for such an expansion. Mr. Rayor referred to page 72 of the meeting packet, which was a memorandum from Eugene Public Works staff regarding its concerns about the trip count as too Iow and about the conclusion there was no regional impact. He said that if he was convinced there was no regional impact he would support opting out of the process, but the memorandum seemed to be directly at odds with Ms. Childs' statements. Ms. Childs said the problem was a semantic one; "regional impact" has a specific definition in the Metropolitan Plan, and that was the evaluation the council was required to make. The regional impact test in the Metropolitan Plan and the City Code addressed the issue of whether an amendment to TransPlan would be required for the project to occur, and was additionally focused on arterial and collector streets and changes that would degrade the LOS below D. Ms. Childs said that there was an acknowledgment there would be MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 7 11:30 a.m.