Laserfiche WebLink
Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Ortiz, moved to amend the ordinance to: <br />1. Revise Section 6 to state: "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter of <br />2002, Sections 1- of this ordinance shall not become effective until the Lane Board of <br />County Commissioners and the Springfield City Council have taken action identical <br />to the action taken by the City of Eugene in sections 1 -3 of this ordinance." <br />2. Add a new Section 7 to state: "The heading on Chapter 3, page 7 of TransPlan is <br />hereby amended to add a footnote that states: `While transportation projects related <br />to the West Eugene Parkway remain on the project lists, the Metropolitan Policy <br />Committee has eliminated all funding related to the West Eugene Parkway from the <br />Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program and the State Transportation <br />Improvement Program and has deleted all West Eugene Parkway transportation <br />projects from the federally required Regional Transportation Plan. Thus, no West <br />Eugene Parkway transportation project can be relied upon as a planned transportation <br />facility under the State Transportation Planning Rule." <br />3. Add a new Section 8 to state: "Pursuant to Eugene Code 9.7730(2) and Lane Code <br />12.225(1)(b), notwithstanding the provisions of the Eugene Charter, Section 7 of this <br />ordinance shall not become effective until the Lane Board of County Commissioners <br />has taken action identical to the action taken by the City of Eugene in Section 7 of this <br />ordinance. <br />Councilor Clark recognized that the West Eugene Parkway project was dead, but it still had a placeholder <br />status in planning documents for legal reasons. He asked if passage of the motion would place into <br />question a property owner's ability to apply for a change of zone. Councilor Clark referred to the last <br />section of the amendment and asked if it hampered the ability of the council to change zones and <br />effectively prove compliance with transportation goals. City Attorney Jerome said because the facility <br />was not going to be built, any developments that generated traffic in west Eugene could not rely on the <br />West Eugene Parkway to accommodate that traffic. The text offered by Councilor Zelenka would clarify <br />that to the reader of the TransPlan document. She anticipated that the project would be removed from <br />TransPlan next year. <br />Councilor Pryor supported adding item 2 as a clarifying footnote was a good idea and determined from <br />City Attorney Jerome that if the motion was adopted, it further clarified the adopting jurisdictions and <br />ensured that even if Lane County did not adopt the footnote, it still went forward. <br />Roll call vote; the amendment to the motion passed, 8:0. <br />Roll call vote; the motion passed, 8:0. <br />ACTION: <br />Recommendation on Proposal to Name New Willamette/I -5 Bridge the "Whilamut Passage <br />Bridge" <br />Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to support the Citizen Planning <br />Committee recommendation and direct staff to prepare a letter to the Oregon Department <br />of Transportation endorsing the name "Whilamut Passage Bridge." <br />Councilor Zelenka commended the idea as honoring the Kalapuya Indian tribe and thanked David <br />Sonnichsen of the Whilamut Citizen Planning Committee for forwarding the idea. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council August 9, 2010 Page 4 <br />Regular Meeting <br />