Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

County Commissioners and the Springfield City Council have taken action identical to the action taken by the City of Eugene in sections 1-3 of this ordinance.” 2. Add a new Section 7 to state: “The heading on Chapter 3, page 7 of TransPlan is hereby amended to add a footnote that states: ‘While transportation projects related to the West Eugene Parkway remain on the project lists, the Metropolitan Policy Committee has eliminated all funding related to the West Eugene Parkway from the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and the State Transportation Improvement Program and has deleted all West Eugene Parkway transportation projects from the federally required Regional Transportation Plan. Thus, no West Eugene Parkway transportation project can be relied upon as a planned transportation facility under the State Transportation Planning Rule.” 3. Add a new Section 8 to state: “Pursuant to Eugene Code 9.7730(2) and Lane Code 12.225(1)(b), notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter, Section 7 of this ordinance shall not become effective until the Lane Board of County Commissioners has taken action identical to the action taken by the City of Eugene in Section 7 of this ordinance. Mr. Clark recognized that the West Eugene Parkway project was dead, but it still had a placeholder status in planning documents for legal reasons. He asked if passage of the motion would place into question a property owner’s ability to apply for a change of zone. Mr. Clark referred to the last section of the amendment and asked if it hampered the ability of the council to change zones and effectively prove compliance with transportation goals. City Attorney Jerome said because the facility was not going to be built, any developments that generated traffic in west Eugene could not rely on the West Eugene Parkway to accommodate that traffic. The text offered by Mr. Zelenka would clarify that to the reader of the TransPlan document. She anticipated that the project would be removed from TransPlan next year. Mr. Pryor supported adding item 2 as a clarifying footnote was a good idea and determined from City Attorney Jerome that if the motion was adopted, it further clarified the adopting jurisdictions and ensured that even if Lane County did not adopt the footnote, it still went forward. Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 8:0. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 8:0. 6. ACTION: Recommendation on Proposal to Name New Willamette/I-5 Bridge the “Whilamut Passage Bridge” Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to support the Citizen Planning Committee recommendation and direct staff to prepare a letter to the Oregon Department of Transportation endorsing the name “Whilamut Passage Bridge.” Mr. Zelenka commended the idea as honoring the Kalapuya Indian tribe and thanked David Sonnichsen of the Whilamut Citizen Planning Committee for forwarding the idea. Mr. Clark asked staff to clarify what the bridge signage would cost. City Manager Ruiz said it would be $960. Mr. Clark noted that his great-great grandmother was a member of Montana’s Blackfoot Tribe, and this was MINUTES—City Council April 14, 2010 Page 4