Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Zelenka asked what the difference was between the language of staff’s recommendation and the <br />language of Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Inerfeld stated it would be easier for staff to initiate their <br />recommendations than it would be to execute the deletions and modifications described in Ms. Bettman’s <br />motion. <br />Mr. Zelenka said it would be his preference to execute the WEP now rather than later and asked what would <br />be pushed back if the City focused on the WEP immediately. Mr. Inerfeld could not say specifically what <br />would be pushed back, but that it might impact the West 11th Transportation Corridor study, the West <br />Eugene Collaborative, the EmX expansion with the Lane Transit District, and pedestrian/bicycle planning in <br />the south hills area of Eugene. <br />Mr. Inerfeld said it was necessary for the City to balance the land use and transportation systems in West <br />Eugene, and that they might not be able to do so at this point because the City had no other facilities it could <br />use to substitute for the WEP. He summarized saying that the State required the City to have some other <br />project in place in order to take the WEP out, and that the City was currently unprepared to do so. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked Mr. Klein if that meant that Ms. Bettman’s motion would be considered illegal. Mr. <br />Klein answered that it might be difficult to determine the legality of the motion as it involved multiple <br />jurisdictions such as the City of Eugene and Lane County, and that any removal of the WEP from TransPlan <br />would be considered acceptable provided the City could prove that something was planned to take its place. <br />Mr. Klein said he did not perceive a problem with Ms. Bettman initiating removal of the WEP but that if it <br />were done now the City would have nothing to replace it with. He further explained that the staff’s <br />recommendation to change the language as suggested by ODOT was designed to prevent developers from <br />exploiting the WEP project to re-zone their properties. <br />Mr. Zelenka said it was his understanding the WEP did not solve the transportation problems in west <br />Eugene in the first place and that the City was already non-compliant with State and Federal guidelines. Mr. <br />Klein said that the WEP, as part of TransPlan, was already considered consistent with State planning goals, <br />the TPR and Goal 12. He further stated that any opportunity to amend the TransPlan was also an <br />opportunity for government officials to say that the plan was not consistent with State requirements. <br />Mr. Zelenka, noting the population projection from the second of the five staff recommendations, asked if <br />that figure was based on the slower population growth that Mr. Inerfeld had mentioned earlier. Mr. Inerfeld <br />confirmed that it was. <br />Mr. Poling, referring to the third of the five Staff recommendations, said a recently formed stakeholder <br />group looking at the Beltline improvements had actually focused on the area from Coburg Road to the <br />Beltline’s potential intersection with Crocker Road. He asked if the wording of the recommendation or Ms. <br />Bettman’s motion would need to be changed to reflect that determination. <br />Mr. Inerfeld commented that when the RTP was updated to a financially constrained plan, the area from <br />River Road to Delta Highway was specified because it was identified as having the most severe problems. <br />He commented that the section of the Beltline from Delta Highway to Coburg Road remained on the <br />Illustrative list. <br />Mr. Pryor said he was satisfied with staff’s recommendations, and subsequently could not support Ms. <br />Bettman’s motion. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 13, 2008 Page 10 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />