Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

horizon estimation had been adjusted to reflect slower population growth than was originally projected. Mr. Inerfeld said staff would like for a TransPlan update to happen within the next few years, presumably to coincide with the RTP update planned for 2011. Mr. Clark, referring to the third of the five staff recommendations, recalled a previous vote where council discussed the Beltline Highway from River Road to Delta Highway as being the top regional transportation priority for the City. He asked if a vote on Ms. Bettman’s motion would change that priority in any way. Mr. Inerfeld answered that it would not. Mr. Clark was not sure of the value of voting affirmatively on Ms. Bettman’s motion and asked Mr. Inerfeld to identify any potential harm as Mr. Clark interpreted the motion as being contrary to ODOT’s suggestion. Mr. Inerfeld commented it might divert staff time at the City and LCOG that would otherwise be spent on the TSP update and ongoing studies. Mr. Zelenka asked why staff recommended that the RTP issues be addressed over the next several months instead of being taken care of immediately. Mr. Inerfeld replied that there were procedures to be followed with the City Planning Commission and council and that immediate action would not be feasible beyond the act of initiating the changes to TransPlan. Mr. Zelenka averred that the federal portion of the TransPlan had been removed from the RTP. Mr. Inerfeld said that State laws dictated that some sort of transportation facility be constructed to serve the City’s planned land uses and that removal of the WEP from the TransPlan would violate that mandate. He further stated that staff’s recommendation to fold the WEP into the constrained plan would allow the City to comply with state laws. Mr. Zelenka offered that for all intents and purposes the WEP project was dead as it had no funding or authorization to proceed, and that continuing to discuss the WEP was undue process. Mr. Inerfeld said the language staff was recommending to be added to the TransPlan was for the purpose of providing developers the opportunity to rely on the WEP in the interim as it would still be in the TransPlan. Mr. Zelenka asked what the difference was between the language of staff’s recommendation and the language of Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Inerfeld stated it would be easier for staff to initiate their recommendations than it would be to execute the deletions and modifications described in Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Zelenka said it would be his preference to execute the WEP now rather than later and asked what would be pushed back if the City focused on the WEP immediately. Mr. Inerfeld could not say specifically what would be pushed back, but that it might impact the West 11th Transportation Corridor study, the West Eugene Collaborative, the EmX expansion with the Lane Transit District, and pedestrian/bicycle planning in the south hills area of Eugene. Mr. Inerfeld said it was necessary for the City to balance the land use and transportation systems in West Eugene, and that they might not be able to do so at this point because the City had no other facilities it could use to substitute for the WEP. He summarized saying that the State required the City to have some other project in place in order to take the WEP out, and that the City was currently unprepared to do so. Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Klein if that meant that Ms. Bettman’s motion would be considered illegal. Mr. Klein answered that it might be difficult to determine the legality of the motion as it involved multiple jurisdictions such as the City of Eugene and Lane County, and that any removal of the WEP from TransPlan would be considered acceptable provided the City could prove that something was planned to take its place. Mr. Klein said he did not perceive a problem with Ms. Bettman initiating removal of the WEP but that if it MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 9 Work Session