Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mayor Piercy reported that some members of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee were concerned both about their ability to provide advice to the City and their ability to bring other ideas to the table. She hoped Mr. Roth worked with that group to get both its advice and its ideas out. Mr. Clark noted the draft alternatives and evaluation memorandum was released just as the council completed making the major decisions related to the Envision Eugene process. He said it seemed like the process was a sequential one rather than a parallel one and asked if that was intentional. Mr. Yeiter said the process was intended to be iterative. He said Transportation staff had been providing information to the Envision Eugene process and the Planning staff was learning that those areas with the most commercial activity and residential development were also those areas with the most congestion. The question would be whether to put more residents in those areas and what tradeoffs might be necessary for that to occur. Mr. Clark was concerned that the City would use transportation planning to limit itself in accomplishing what was put forward in the Envision Eugene process. He did not expect a look at where congestion would be, but rather a plan for the capacity needed to accomplish the objectives of the Envision Eugene process. He confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that the process of developing evaluation criteria had just begun. Mr. Clark noted that the City frequently used vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a measure, but Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) staff had recently suggested that VMT was at best a crude instrument in regard to answering environmental questions. He said ODOT had indicated it would develop a new tool to accomplish that goal, and asked if the City would produce its own tool or wait for ODOT to give it one. Mr. Yeiter recalled that Eugene was the first jurisdiction in Oregon to propose an alternative mobility standard to the VMT standard and staff had learned a lot from that. He did not know if Eugene would meet the VMT standard under the old plan, saying it was possible it might under the new plan, or Eugene could propose a new or modified set of alternative mobility standards. The VMT standard continued to be a requirement mandated by the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). Mr. Yeiter did not think ODOT’s new standard would be in place when the City adopted its TSP. Mr. Brown determined from Mr. Yeiter that the final existing conditions memorandum did not yet exist. Mr. Yeiter indicated that staff had drafted a memorandum that lacked a traffic analysis; that traffic analysis was now in draft form and being reviewed by the City’s engineers. It would be available soon and would be online. Mr. Brown requested a copy of the ODOT traffic count of 50 intersections. Mr. Yeiter said that would be part of the existing conditions memorandum. He would have it posted on the Web site euge- netsp.org and would let the council know when it was available. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Yeiter said the City was not projected to meet the VMT reduction goals set by the State. Mr. Zelenka asked how that would change under the new plan. Mr. Yeiter said that generally, VMT had been dropping nationally. He acknowledged there had not yet been a measurement of that done in Eugene. A survey of Eugene-Springfield driving habits had recently occurred but he had not seen the results. Mr. Zelenka asked if staff expected the State to retain the VMT standard since no jurisdiction had met it. Mr. Yeiter said City staff had suggested to State staff that Oregon drop the VMT measurement given the State was developing greenhouse gas targets and the relationship between the two was unclear. He believed the VMT standard would stay and there would be two different goals. State staff now seemed to believe that VMT was a rough but fair measurement of greenhouse gas reductions. MINUTES—City Council October 27, 2010 Page 2 Work Session