Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

City was making those projects a priority over the life of the plan. He reported that in 2006, the City Council had gone on record stating the Beltline project was its first priority for funding in north and west th Eugene, and West 11 Avenue was the second priority for funding in the same area. The City was actively moving both projects along. The Oregon Department of Transportation was currently doing a facility planning study for Beltline and had $2.5 million scheduled to complete the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work required. Mr. Inerfeld said approval of the amendments were consistent with the Council’s direction. Mr. Yeiter asked the commission to make a recommendation on the matter to the council, and noted the draft motion provided by staff. Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing. Kevin Matthews , President of the Friends of Eugene (FOE), PO Box 1588, Eugene, submitted a five- page written statement on behalf of FOE into the record. Mr. Matthews expressed concern about the project because it would result in a four-lane road that would eventually run into a two-lane road. He suggested that there might be critical habitat in the project footprint. He questioned the accuracy of the maps used by the Lane Council of Governments in developing the project. Mr. Matthews did not believe that the City should be adding new lane miles of roadway to the “outer parts of the urban growth boundary” without a strong assurance of good results and minimized impacts. He asserted that “all kinds of formal planning references show that new lane miles of roadway induce traffic.” Mr. Matthews said that people who live on the urban fringe drive one and one-half to twice the average of those living in the city center. He asserted that to reduce carbon emissions to the degree necessary in 40 years, the City must reduce emissions between five and ten percent each year. That did not take into account population increases. Mr. Matthews acknowledged that there were likely to be technological advances that reduced emissions, but asserted that “nobody who has studied this in detail” believed the reductions needed could be achieved by advances in vehicle technology. He asked the commission to let the Beltline project move forward but to take this “climate-busting, sprawl project” that he did not think justified off the list. There being no further testimony, Mr. Carroll requested a staff response. Mr. Inerfeld reminded the commission of the lengthy public process that a project must go through to get included in TransPlan and to be constructed. He said that there was a considerable amount of private land in the area was going to be developed by somebody at some time and the City needed to have a facility in th place to respond to that development. Currently, West 11 Avenue in that area lacked both sidewalks and bicycle facilities. If people wished to access development in the area without driving, they could not do so. Mr. Inerfeld said the Facility Planning Study would include opportunities for public engagement where the issues mentioned by Mr. Matthews could be raised. He pointed out that the project would also have to go through the NEPA process, which also included opportunities for public input and was intended to address the environmental issues raised by Mr. Matthews. Mr. Yeiter indicated the commission could postpone action if it wished to further consider the issues raised in testimony. Mr. Carroll asked for direction regarding what sources the commission could consult in reaching its decision. Mr. Yeiter suggested the commission could leave the record open to gather additional information. Ms. Brotherton said that the commission could consult TransPlan, the Metro Plan, and the MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 2