Item 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

of the project. He found inconsistencies with Goal 2, the need for a factual basis for minor plan changes and Goal 12, transportation. Several community advisory groups were currently studying various plans and projects, and he thought a new perspective of the project may result from that work. Mr. Hledik asked if there were any directives resulting from the governor’s studies on climate change and vehicle emissions that would impact Planning Commission actions. Mr. Inerfeld was not aware of any climate change mandates in the transportation package that passed during the 2009 legislative session. Mr. Hledik, seconded by Mr. Lawless, moved that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the amendments to TransPlanand the Metro Plan to move Projects 333 and 506 from the “Future” project list to the “Financially Constrained” project list based on the findings of consistency set forth in Attachment A and the evidence and testimony entered into the record. Mr. Lawless averred he reluctantly seconded the motion because he thought there was too much separation between the technical need, the ongoing issues on West Eleventh Avenue, and the fact that this seemed to be a politically convenient shift to leverage additional funds. However, it felt as if it was part of a broader system that eventually needed to studied, which could occur by placement on the financially constrained list. He believed in a simple approach to sustaining the urban growth boundary (UGB), staying within the development zone for the broader interests of the state, which meant development would occur within the UGB, for which the City was required to provide urban services. He would vote yes because this would allow the next level of study to happen and he believed there would be sufficient process to discuss the pertinent issues. Ms. Kneeland would vote no on the West Eleventh Avenue extension but would support the Beltline Highway. Mr. Duncan would support the motion although he agreed there was a lack of technical data regarding West Eleventh Avenue and the area which would be affected. He also agreed further studies would answer outstanding questions. He was concerned about this being the politically acceptable thing to do after the loss of the WEP and the work of the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC), but that was insufficient to support voting against the motion. Ms. Beierle felt it would be easier to vote for the Beltline Highway project without attaching it to the West Eleventh Avenue project. She saw opportunities for transportation alternatives and the ability to meet the transportation performance measures by additional studies and West Eleventh Avenue design. She questioned how convinced the City Council was on moving forward with the proposal based upon the tie vote. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the logistics of either splitting the motion, amending the motion, or withdrawing the motion. Mr. Duncan requested that detailed rather than summary minutes of the discussion be submitted to City Council. Mr. Hledik withdrew the motion. MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 7