Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

process and it was necessary for the Council to endorse recommendations of the Facility Plan for the ODOT projects to move forward. Responding to a question from Ms. Beierle, Mr. Inerfeld explained moving projects to the financially constrained category prioritized projects to receive future funding and allowed developers to rely upon the projects as reasonably likely to be constructed. In response to Ms. Kneeland’s question regarding U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) projects in the wetlands and potential endangered species issues, Ms. Brotherton stated the there was nothing specific about goals, TransPlan or Metro Plan policy that was addressed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) findings. The findings offered a heads up to help identify issues that would need to be addressed later. Mr. Inerfeld added that the facilities planning process provided an opportunity get all of the issues on table but did not presuppose specific design. He iterated the City Council would ultimately need to approve finding a need and development of a design concept. Additionally, the project would go through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. Referring to the Friends of Eugene (FOE) May 5, 2009 correspondence, Mr. Hledik noted their statement “there was no substantial demonstrated need for this project”. He stated the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) modeling and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for various development projects pointed towards the need to at least evaluate the project for further consideration. Further noting the letter stated the proposal was “clearly contrary to the intent and letter of several state planning goals, as well as clearly contrary to several of Eugene’s own growth management policies”, he asserted the City had an obligation to provide facilities to serve its planned land use, particularly in west Eugene which had been developed as an industrial area in addition to residential land uses. The City had an obligation to provide a facilities plan that addressed water, sewer, fire and transportation. Mr. Hledik asked where the inconsistencies as cited by the FOE were. Ms. Brotherton stated the City Attorney’s office found no specific inconsistencies had been identified through public testimony. The City Attorney’s review and analysis had resulted in findings of consistency in goals and policies. Mr. Lawless noted during the hearing Mr. Carroll had asked if projects had been added to the plan for political reasons by elected officials at the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC) or if technical analysis supporting inclusion of the project had occurred. He understood that no technical information other than studies on the WEP supported or implied the desire to elevate the West Eleventh Avenue project. Mr. Inerfeld was not aware of technical analysis, but rather an identified need. When the WEP was cancelled approximately $150 million became available for other projects which resulted in other Eugene projects being moved to the ODOT constrained list. Mr. Carroll interpreted the action as a political decision in that minutes for City Council and MPC meetings reflected that the West Eleventh Avenue project illustrated it was a compromise or a logical substitution for the WEP. He would vote against recommending the project be moved to the financially constrained list because the Planning Commission’s recommendation and discussions were muddled. It was important to clarify that WEP was gone and something needed to be done on West Eleventh Avenue. Additionally, the City Council needed to identify the point MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 6