Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

fall 2006. Mr. Lawless characterized that as “a while back” and said he would be interested in the context of that conversation before the commission deliberated. th Mr. Hledik suggested the proposed West 11 Avenue project could open the door to funding for the technical analysis related to the recommendations of the WEC. Mr. Inerfeld, a member of the WEC, reiterated that the WEC’s recommendations did not encompass the segment of the roadway in question. The WEC had endorsed the Highway 126 study proposed by Senator Prozanski and Representative Holvey. Mr. Hledik suggested the project would “complete that length” of the roadway not addressed by the Highway 126 study and WEC recommendations. At the request of Mr. Carroll, Mr. Inerfeld identified the location of Terry Street on a map. Mr. Lawless asked for information about the rationale for the four-lane road improvement that occurred th on West 11 Avenue between Terry and Danebo streets. Mr. Matthews said the WEC’s area of focus extended to Greenhill, but he asserted its “area of interest” extended beyond Veneta. The WEC did not make specific recommendations about the section of West th 11 Avenue in question. The WEC had made general recommendations about concentrating density inside of Beltline. He believed that the project, while “in the works” while the WEC deliberated, was not necessarily consistent with the vision of the WEC. He maintained that the WEC “addressed it by absence” rather than explicitly. The WEC called for road improvements to be made within existing rights-of-way. He thought the WEC would like it if the commission considered the WEC vision and how the project fit into the WEC’s priorities. Mr. Inerfeld observed that the WEC tended to avoid topics on which members did not reach consensus. th Mr. Hledik asked if the City had considered how widening West 11 Avenue affected its vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction goal. Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the City did not have a VMT reduction goal. With the concurrence of the State, Eugene-Springfield had adopted alternative performance measures in TransPlan because it was determined it could not meet a VMT reduction target. He added that the City would be updating TransPlan soon and would be bound by what rules were in place at the time in regard to VMT reductions. He doubted any facilities planning work would occur on the road segment in question before that update was completed. Mr. Hledik asked if the road configuration would be evaluated against those new VMT standards. Ms. Brotherton said the City would have to meet any requirements in place. He said that individual projects were not considered in terms of VMT reduction. Ms. Brotherton said that VMT reduction was considered on a regional basis, so one road project did not put the region out of compliance. Mr. Hledik asked how the incremental impact of projects was measured. Ms. Brotherton said the City had benchmarks against which to evaluate progress. She said the City was in good shape overall in regard to the benchmarks. Mr. Hledik posited that the City could rezone all of the periphery to very low-density zoning and rezone the heart of the community to high-density residential and as long as the region met the performance standards on a regional basis, that was acceptable. Ms. Brotherton said yes, although there might be other policies that precluded that. Ms. Kneeland asked if a VMT reduction was an alternative performance measurement that the City must meet. Staff indicated it would clarify that issue. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 4