My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 10/19/09 Public Hearing
>
Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:18:06 PM
Creation date
10/16/2009 9:58:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/19/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
101
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
fall 2006. Mr. Lawless characterized that as “a while back” and said he would be interested in the context <br />of that conversation before the commission deliberated. <br />th <br />Mr. Hledik suggested the proposed West 11 Avenue project could open the door to funding for the <br />technical analysis related to the recommendations of the WEC. Mr. Inerfeld, a member of the WEC, <br />reiterated that the WEC’s recommendations did not encompass the segment of the roadway in question. <br />The WEC had endorsed the Highway 126 study proposed by Senator Prozanski and Representative <br />Holvey. Mr. Hledik suggested the project would “complete that length” of the roadway not addressed by <br />the Highway 126 study and WEC recommendations. <br />At the request of Mr. Carroll, Mr. Inerfeld identified the location of Terry Street on a map. <br />Mr. Lawless asked for information about the rationale for the four-lane road improvement that occurred <br />th <br />on West 11 Avenue between Terry and Danebo streets. <br />Mr. Matthews said the WEC’s area of focus extended to Greenhill, but he asserted its “area of interest” <br />extended beyond Veneta. The WEC did not make specific recommendations about the section of West <br />th <br />11 Avenue in question. The WEC had made general recommendations about concentrating density <br />inside of Beltline. He believed that the project, while “in the works” while the WEC deliberated, was not <br />necessarily consistent with the vision of the WEC. He maintained that the WEC “addressed it by <br />absence” rather than explicitly. The WEC called for road improvements to be made within existing <br />rights-of-way. He thought the WEC would like it if the commission considered the WEC vision and how <br />the project fit into the WEC’s priorities. <br />Mr. Inerfeld observed that the WEC tended to avoid topics on which members did not reach consensus. <br />th <br />Mr. Hledik asked if the City had considered how widening West 11 Avenue affected its vehicle miles <br />traveled (VMT) reduction goal. Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the City did not have a VMT reduction goal. <br />With the concurrence of the State, Eugene-Springfield had adopted alternative performance measures in <br />TransPlan because it was determined it could not meet a VMT reduction target. He added that the City <br />would be updating TransPlan soon and would be bound by what rules were in place at the time in regard <br />to VMT reductions. He doubted any facilities planning work would occur on the road segment in <br />question before that update was completed. <br />Mr. Hledik asked if the road configuration would be evaluated against those new VMT standards. Ms. <br />Brotherton said the City would have to meet any requirements in place. He said that individual projects <br />were not considered in terms of VMT reduction. Ms. Brotherton said that VMT reduction was considered <br />on a regional basis, so one road project did not put the region out of compliance. <br />Mr. Hledik asked how the incremental impact of projects was measured. Ms. Brotherton said the City <br />had benchmarks against which to evaluate progress. She said the City was in good shape overall in <br />regard to the benchmarks. <br />Mr. Hledik posited that the City could rezone all of the periphery to very low-density zoning and rezone <br />the heart of the community to high-density residential and as long as the region met the performance <br />standards on a regional basis, that was acceptable. Ms. Brotherton said yes, although there might be other <br />policies that precluded that. <br />Ms. Kneeland asked if a VMT reduction was an alternative performance measurement that the City must <br />meet. Staff indicated it would clarify that issue. <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 4 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.