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

Home Browse Search

some additional traffic generated by a development such as the sports center, but that additional traffic in and of itself did not meet the regional impact test. Ms. Nathanson asked how the threshold of LOS D was established. Ms. Childs said that was the threshold included in the adopted TransPlan. It was also the standard used by ©D©T for State facilities, and as I-5 and Beltline were both State facilities the standard had further significance. Ms. Nathanson differentiated between Eugene as party to the development approval process and Eugene as a party to the planning process. She recollected feeling concerned about the impacts of Gateway on Harlow Road within the Eugene city limits and having no way to change those impacts or the finance resources to offset those impacts. She asked how a jurisdiction could participate as a serious player in planning and receive funding for required modifications or improvements that resulted from a development not in its jurisdiction. Ms. Childs said that the City had the opportunity to provide input into the Beltline/l-5 study and suggested that the council schedule a status report on that study, which had reached the point of alternatives development. The City also had the opportunity to participate in regional transportation planning through the TransPlan update adoption process. Ms. Childs anticipated that major work would be needed at the Beltline/l-5 interchange, and that would require a regional decision. She suggested that larger transportation impacts could be addressed through those processes. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Childs to confirm that continuing the status quo merely kept Eugene "formally at the table" in the decision making process on the amendment. Ms. Childs concurred. She suggested that a question that must be answered was whether Eugene could remain involved if the traffic impact was not judged not to be regionally significant. She said that Eugene's authority to participate in the proceedings could be appealed on a procedural basis. Mr. Lee asked how the council knew if the project had a regional impact, and if the staff analysis was reasonable. He said that if it was reasonable, then the process was done for Eugene. Mr. Pap~ asked if Eugene could be enjoined from participating. Mr. Klein said no, but the decision could be appealed on the basis of Eugene's participation if Eugene cast the sole dissenting vote against the UGB expansion. He pointed out that Eugene had already determined there was a regional impact; if Eugene did not want to participate, the council did not have to make a new determination but could merely rescind the resolution. Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Ms. Childs reiterated that the traffic impact analysis indicated the project would have no regional impact. Mr. Farr said that it appeared from the analysis and the location of the project that it would have no impact on Eugene, so he questioned why the council would want to spend council and staff time on the amendment. The council was joined by Springfield Mayor Maureen Maine and Springfield Development Director Susan Daluddung. Ms. Maine said that Eugene had acted appropriately in deciding to opt in to the amendment process dependent on the results of the traffic impact analysis. The traffic impact analysis performed by Branch Engineering indicated no regional impact, or no demonstrable impact on the traffic facilities of the non-home city, as outlined in the criteria cited on page 61 of the staff notes. Ms. Maine endorsed the Eugene staff recommendation and asked the council to opt out of the amendment proceedings. She said concerns about traffic in the area will be addressed through the ©D©T study, and she anticipated Springfield would request Eugene's assistance in requesting funds for the projects that would result from the study. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 13, 1999 Page 8 11:30 a.m.