Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Lawless asked if the alternative performance measures excluded the use of VMT as a measurement. <br />Ms. Brotherton did not think so. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the alternative performance <br />measures were not applied to individual projects; they were applied at the regional level because they <br />addressed the number of acres rezoned for nodal development and the miles of priority bikeways that had <br />been built, and those were not the type of metrics that could be easily applied to an individual project. <br />Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing and kept the public record open for 21 days to allow for the <br />submittal of additional information from staff. <br />Ms. Kneeland requested information about other relevant City policies that addressed VMT. <br />Mr. Carroll requested information about whether projects were added to the plan for political reason by <br />the elected officials at the MPC or if there was technical analysis supporting the inclusion of the projects. <br />Mr. Inerfeld did not believe there was any coordination among MPC members to add the projects. <br />Mr. Carroll adjourned the hearing at 6:03 p.m. <br />(Recorded by Kimberly Young) <br />MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 5 <br />