HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: Ordinance on Transplan and Metro Plan Amendments
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing:
An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan
(TransPlan) to Move Project Nos. 333 and 506 from the Future Roadway Projects List to
the Financially Constrained Roadway Projects List, to Update the Project Descriptions
for Project Nos. 333 and 506 and to Make Related Amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan
Meeting Date: October 19, 2009 Agenda Item Number: 1
Department: Public Works Staff Contact: Rob Inerfeld
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5343
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the following amendments to the Eugene-
Springfield Regional Transportation System Plan (“TransPlan”) and the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan):
Moving Project Numbers 333 and 506 from the Future Roadway Projects list to the
Financially Constrained Roadway Projects list and to update the project descriptions
to make them consistent with the adopted Regional Transportation Plan. The
proposed amendments would add to TransPlan’s Financially Constrained Roadway
Projects list the following two projects:
th
A.Project No. 333: W. 11 Avenue, Green Hill Road to Terry Street,
“Upgrade to urban facility”
B.Project No. 506: North Eugene Transportation Improvements, River
Road to Delta Highway, “Improve capacity across Willamette River
within N. Eugene Area”
City Council action on this matter is scheduled for November 9, 2009.
BACKGROUND
On November 8, 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) adopted an update to the federally-
required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). This update moved projects from the Illustrative Project
List (beyond 20-years) to the Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Actions List and
made several other changes to proposed projects. MPC’s adoption of the updated RTP triggered a state
Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requirement that Eugene, Springfield and Lane County do one of
the following by November 8, 2008:
Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091019\S0910191.doc
1. Make a finding that the RTP amendments are consistent with TransPlan; or
2. Adopt amendments to TransPlan within one year that make it consistent with the RTP update; or
3. Adopt amendments to TransPlan that make it consistent with the RTP according to a work plan
approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC).
For a number of reasons, Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County proceeded under Option 3.
Accordingly, the three jurisdictions sought LCDC’s approval of a work plan. The City Council
participated in the preparation of the work plan and on September 15, 2008, approved it for presentation
to LCDC. On October 16, 2008, LCDC approved (with conditions) the Regional Transportation Work
Plan (the “Work Plan,” provided as Attachment B). The Work Plan represents a logical, programmatic
approach to aligning and updating the regional land use and transportation plans.
The Work Plan requires, as a first step, that the local jurisdictions amend TransPlan in the following
manner:
?
delete transportation projects that have been completed;
?
adjust TransPlan’s planning period;
?
delete the West Eugene Parkway (WEP), and
?
move four ODOT highway projects from the Future list to the Financially Constrained list (only
two of these projects are located in Eugene; the other two are being processed by the City of
Springfield).
This public hearing on October 19 is held to consider moving the two ODOT highway projects located
th
in Eugene, portions of West 11 Avenue and Beltline Highway from River Road to Coburg Road, from
the Future list to the Financially Constrained list. On June 29, 2009, after a public hearing and extended
public comment period, the Eugene Planning Commission recommended approval of these amendments.
Hearings for the other amendments, some of which require joint action with other jurisdictions, will
occur at a later date.
During the Planning Commission deliberations, staff agreed that the project descriptions should be made
more generic so that the project designs could remain responsive to site conditions and needs of
adjoining properties and stakeholders. For instance, in response to testimony received related to natural
th
resources issues, the project description for Project No. 333 (West 11 Avenue) will not specify the
precise number of travel lanes for the roadway.
Materials attached to this AIS further describe the approval criteria, the purpose and content of
TransPlan’s project lists, public testimony received at the Planning Commission hearing, and draft
minutes of the Planning Commission’s deliberation. Of particular note are letters from the Friends of
th
Eugene and Bureau of Land Management regarding the West 11 project. City staff is committed to
addressing these issues through the facility planning process for West 11th Avenue from Terry Street to
Green Hill Road which is currently neither funded, nor scheduled.
The rules governing typical TransPlan and Metro Plan amendments state that “The council's decision
shall be based solely on the evidentiary record created before the planning commission. No new
evidence shall be allowed at the council hearing” (EC 9.7735(4)). However, EC 9.7750(1) also allows
the City Council to establish a “different process, timeline, or both, than the processes and timelines
Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091019\S0910191.doc
specified [in the local ordinances].” Therefore, additional evidence may be considered at this hearing
with a majority vote of the council.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
TransPlan contains the following policies that, on balance, support these proposed amendments, which
update the project lists:
?
Transportation Infrastructure Protection and Management:
Protect and manage existing and
future transportation infrastructure.
?
TransPlan Project Lists:
Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20-Year Capital
Investment Actions project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are
not adopted as policy.
?
Motor Vehicle Level of Service:
Use motor vehicle level of service standards to maintain
acceptable and reliable performance on the roadway system. (abridged)
?
Prioritization of State and Federal Revenue:
Set priorities for investment of Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) and federal revenues programmed in the region’s
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to address safety and major capacity problems on
the region’s transportation system.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
No action is required on this item at this time. After the public hearing, the council may close the
hearing and record, or leave the record open for a specific length of time. The record must remain open
if the council wants more information before making a decision.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
No action is required on this item. Therefore, no recommendations are offered by the City Manager at
this time.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No action is required on this item. Therefore, no motions are offered by the City Manager at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A to Ordinance: Revisions to TransPlan
Exhibit B to Ordinance: Findings of Consistency
B. LCDC Workplan, expanded to show local actions
C. Letter from Bureau of Land Management dated April 24, 2009
D. Letter from Friends of Eugene/Kevin Matthews dated May 5, 2009
E. Planning Commission Minutes of May 5, 2009
F. Memo to Planning Commission from Rob Inerfeld, dated May 20, 2009
G. Metropolitan Policy Committee Minutes, July 13, 2006
Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091019\S0910191.doc
H. City Council Minutes, September 25, 2006
I. City Council Minutes, October 9, 2006
J. Staff Emails to Planning Commission
K. LCOG Memo to MPC re Performance Measures, dated May 5, 2008
L. City Council Minutes, August 13, 2008
M. Planning Commission Minutes of June 29, 2009 (draft)
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager
Telephone: 682-5343
Staff E-Mail: rob.inerfeld@ci.eugene.or.us
Z:\CMO\2009 Council Agendas\M091019\S0910191.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. __________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-
SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSPORTATION PLAN (TRANSPLAN) TO MOVE
PROJECT NOS. 333 AND 506 FROM THE FUTURE
ROADWAY PROJECTS LIST TO THE FINANCIALLY
CONSTRAINED ROADWAY PROJECTS LIST, TO
UPDATE THE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FOR PROJECT
NOS. 333 AND 506 AND TO MAKE RELATED
AMENDMENTS TO THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD
METROPOLITAN AREA GENERAL PLAN.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that
:
A.
Chapter IV of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro
Plan) sets forth procedures for amendment of the Metro Plan, which for Eugene are implemented
by Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971.
B.
The Metro Plan identifies the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) as a special purpose or functional plan which forms the basis for
the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation improvements in
the metropolitan area.
C.
The City Council adopted TransPlan by Ordinance No. 19385, enacted on April
28, 1986, which was subsequently amended by Ordinance No. 19584, enacted on November 28,
1988, Ordinance No. 19857, enacted on June 8, 1992, Ordinance No. 19872, enacted on
September 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 19887 enacted on November 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 20186
enacted on February 14, 2000, Ordinance No. 20234 enacted on September 10, 2001, and
Ordinance No. 20258 enacted on July 8, 2002, adopting a revised Transportation Element of the
Metro Plan and adopting revisions to TransPlan.
D.
On November 8, 2007, the Metropolitan Policy Committee adopted an update to
the federally-required Regional Transportation Plan (RTP); the update included moving Project
No. 333 and Project No. 506 from the Illustrative Roadway Projects list to the Financially
Constrained Roadway Projects list and updating the descriptions and costs for those two projects.
On August 13, 2008, the City Council initiated TransPlan and Metro Plan amendments to move
these two projects from the Future Roadway Projects list to the Financially Constrained
Roadway Projects list in TransPlan.
E.
Following a public hearing on May 5, 2009, the Eugene Planning Commission
met on June 29, 2009, and recommended to the Eugene City Council that TransPlan be amended
to move Project No. 333 and Project No. 506 from the Future Roadway Projects list to the 20-
year Financially Constrained Roadway Projects list, and related amendments to the Metro Plan.
F.
On October 19, 2009, the City Council conducted a public hearing on these
amendments, and is now ready to take action based upon the above recommendations and the
evidence and testimony already in the record as well as the evidence and testimony presented at
the public hearings held on adopting revisions to TransPlan and to the Metro Plan.
G.
Substantial evidence exists within the record that the proposal meets the
requirements of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971 and the requirements of applicable state and
local law as described in the findings adopted in support of this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
TransPlan, adopted by Ordinance No. 19385, enacted on April 28, 1986,
and amended by Ordinance No. 19584, enacted on November 28, 1988, Ordinance No. 19857,
enacted on June 8, 1992, Ordinance No. 19872, enacted on September 9, 1992, Ordinance No.
19887 enacted on November 9, 1992, Ordinance No. 20186 enacted on February 14, 2000,
Ordinance No. 20234, enacted on September 10, 2001, and Ordinance No. 20258 enacted on
July 8, 2002, is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 2.
The revisions to the 20-Year Financially-Constrained Roadway Projects
list included in Exhibit A are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of the Metro Plan, as
required by Metro Plan Policy F-9, page III-F-7. Project timing and estimated costs are not
adopted as policy.
Section 3.
The City Council adopts the findings set forth in the attached Exhibit B in
support of this action.
Section 4.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
_____ day of _____________, 2009 _____ day of _____________, 2009
_____________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
00230893.DOC;1
Exhibit A
1of 4
Table 1a-Financially Constrained
20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects
Geographic Estimated
NameLimitsDescriptionJurisdictionCostLengthNumber
Project Category:New Arterial Link or Interchange
Status:Programmed
West Eugene Seneca Road to Beltline W 11th - Garfield: 4-lane ODOT$17,283,0001.3336
Parkway, (1A)Roadnew construction
Status:Unprogrammed
West Eugene Garfield Street to Seneca W 11th - Garfield: 4-lane ODOT$34,231,0001.3337Parkway, (1B)
Roadnew construction, continued
th
West Eugene West 11 Avenue to Construct two lanes of future ODOT $30,496,000 2.56 338
Parkway (2A) Beltline Road 4-lane roadway
th
West Eugene West 11 Avenue to Construct remaining two lanes ODOT $6,545,000 2.56 339
Parkway (2B) Beltline Road
Project Category:Added Freeway Lanes or Major
Interchange Improvements
Status:Unprogrammed
I-5@ Beltline HighwayReconstruct interchange ODOT$53,300,0000606
and I-5, upgrade Beltline
Road East to 5 lane urban
facility, and construct I-5
bike and pedestrian bridge.
North EugeneRiver Road to Delta Improve capacity across ODOT$51,292,2001.76506
TransportationHighwayWillamette River within
ImprovementsN. Eugene Area
Project Category:Arterial Capacity Improvements
Status:Programmed
Bloomberg McVay Highway to 30th Modification of connection Lane County, $500,0000.4297
ConnectorAvenueof McVay Highway to 30th ODOT
Avenue
Status:Unprogrammed
6th/7th IntersectionGarfield Street to Provide improvements such ODOT, $520,0000133
ImprovementWashington/Jefferson as additional turn lanes and Eugene
Streetsignal improvements;
intersections include 6th/7th
Exhibit A
2of 4
Avenues at: Garfield,
Chambers,
Washington/Jefferson
Street Bridge
Beltline Highway@ Coburg RoadConstruct ramp and signal ODOT$500,0000622
Improvements
W. 11th AvenueGreen Hill Road toUpgrade to urban ODOT, $20, 000,0001.51333
Terry StreetfacilityEugene
Geographic Estimated
NameLimitsDescriptionJurisdictionCostLengthNumber
Project Category:Urban Standards
Status:Unprogrammed
S. 42nd StreetMain Street to Jasper Reconstruct to 2 to 3-lane ODOT$1,600,0000.8954
urban facility; curbs,
sidewalks and bike lanes
Project Category:Study
Status:Programmed
I-5 @ Beltline @ Interchange Project development work ODOT $3,375,000 -- 606
Study & Design
Status:Unprogrammed
I-5 Interchange Willamette River south Comprehensive study of I-5 ODOT $750,000 -- 250
th
Study to 30 Avenue interchanges
South Bank Street Mill Street to Hilyard Develop refinement plan for Eugene, $250,0001178
ImprovementsStreetstreet systemODOT
Main Street/ I-5 to UGB Access management plan ODOT/Springfield $100,000 6.0 838
Highway 126
Eugene-Springfield I-5 to Main Corridor Study ODOT/Springfield $150,000 6.5 835
Hwy.
Main St. and 52nd 52nd to Main Interchange Plans ODOT/Springfield $100,000 1.5 96
St./Hwy 126 Int.
Beltline River Rd to Coburg Rd Facility Plan Study ODOT $500,000 3.46 555
Exhibit A
3of 4
Table 1b-Future (Beyond 20-Years)
Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects
Geographic Estimated
NameLimitsDescriptionJurisdictionCostLengthNumber
Project Category:New Arterial Link or Interchange
Status:Future
Eugene-Springfieldat Main StreetConstruct interchangeODOT$9,000,000027
Highway (SR-126)
Eugene-Springfieldat 52nd StreetConstruct interchangeODOT $9,000,000030
Highway (SR-126)
Beltline HighwayWest 11th Avenue to Continue widening to 4 ODOT$17,000,0001.14312
Roosevelt Boulevardlanes; new RR Xing,
interchange @ WEP, grade
separation @ Roosevelt and
turn lanes on West 11th
Ave (ODOT: West 11th
North City Limits Stage 3)
Project Category:Added Freeway Lanes or Major
Interchange Improvements
Status:Future
I-530th Avenue/McVay Interchange reconstruction ODOT$15,000,000257
Highwayto improve operations and
safety, reconstruct ramps
and bridges to modern
standards, and provide for 6
lanes on I-5.
I-105Washington/Jefferson Add lane to NB on-ramp ODOT$5,805,0000.75154
Street Bridgefrom 6th Ave, extend third
NB lane over bridge to Delta
Highway exit ramp
Eugene- I-5 to Mohawk BoulevardWiden to 6 lanesODOT$20,124,0002.6 728
Springfield
Highway (SR-126)
Eugene-SpringfieldPioneer Parkway/Q StreetInterchange improvementsODOT$15,000,0000727
Highway (SR-126)
I-105Delta Highway to Coburg Widen to 6 lanesODOT$9,210,6001.19647
Road
I-105Coburg Road to I-5Widen to 6 lanesODOT$11,842,2001.53648
Exhibit A
4of 4
Geographic Estimated
NameLimitsDescriptionJurisdictionCostLengthNumber
I-5I-105 to Highway 58 Widen remaining sections to ODOT$35,000,0005.66260
(Goshen)6 lanes
I-5@ Glenwood InterchangeReconfigure interchange, ODOT$10,000,000256
address weaving, provide 6
lanes on freeway
I-5 @ Willamette Interchange reconstruction ODOT$25,000,000150
River/Franklin Boulevard to create one full
Interchangeinterchange to improve
operations and safety,
reconstruct ramps and
bridges to modern
standards, and provide for 6
lanes on I-5
th
I-105Washington/Jefferson Add lane to 6 Ave. off-rampODOT$4,300,0000.25151
Street Bridge
Project Category:Arterial Capacity Improvements
Status:Future
Project Category:Urban Standards
Status:Future
Highway 99Roosevelt Boulevard to Upgrade to urban facilityODOT$4,955,5001.14148
Garfield Street
McVay HighwayI-5 to Franklin BoulevardUpgrade to 3-lane urban ODOT$6,500,0001.5833
facility; intersection
improvements at I-5 and
Franklin Boulevard
Jasper RoadS. 42nd Street to Jasper Upgrade to 2 to 3-lane urbanODOT$5,250,0003.560
Road Extension facility; intersection
improvement at 42nd Street
and Jasper Road
Franklin Blvd. Jenkins Drive to Mill St. Upgrade to urban facility Springfield/ODOT $5,000,000 1.2 839
Exhibit B
FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY
Metro Plan Amendment Criteria
Criteria to be used to evaluate amendments to the Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation System
Plan (TransPlan) and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) are found in
Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3):
(a)The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
(b)Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
This application involves amending the project lists in TransPlan and the Metro Plan by moving two
projects from the “Future” project list to the “Financially Constrained” project list (“the amendments”).
The process for making the amendments to TransPlan, a special purpose functional plan, and the Metro
Plan are identical; requiring the City to follow the “Type II” amendment process. To become effective,
only the City needs to approve the amendments.
Background
The City Council held work sessions on September 25, 2006 and October 9, 2006 to discuss
transportation priorities in north and west Eugene. At the second work session, the Council passed
motions regarding transportation project priorities to identify the Beltline Corridor from River Road to
Coburg Road as the City’s top priority for funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP), West 11th Avenue from Terry Street to Greenhill Road as its second priority, and a study of the
Beltline Corridor from Roosevelt Boulevard to West 11th Avenue as a third priority for funding in the
STIP.
On November 8, 2007, the MPC adopted an update to the federally-required Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP); the update included deleting from the RTP all projects related to the WEP and moving four ODOT
facilities projects from the Illustrative Roadway Projects list to the Financially Constrained Roadway
Projects list (the four projects included two Springfield projects, the West 11th Ave. from Terry to
Greenhill project and the Beltline Hwy from River Road to Delta Highway project). On August 13,
2008, the Eugene City Council initiated TransPlan and Metro Plan amendments to move two projects
from the Future Roadway Projects list to the Financially Constrained Roadway Projects list in TransPlan:
W. 11th Avenue from Greenhill Road to Terry Street, and Beltline Highway from River Road to Delta
Highway. Specifically, the City Council passed the following motion:
I move to initiate a TransPlan amendment to delete the West Eugene
Parkway from the project list and plan as part of the short-term amendments
and to add the two ODOT facility projects into the “Constrained” project
list, which are the West 11th Avenue from Terry to Greenhill and the
Beltline Highway from River Road to Delta Highway.
1
Criterion A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOAL CONSISTENCY:
Based on the findings set forth below, the amendments are consistent with applicable Statewide Planning
Goals and interpretive rules.
GOAL 1 - CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
Eugene has an acknowledged citizen involvement program and acknowledged processes for securing
citizen input on all proposed Metro Plan amendments. The City’s code provisions implement Statewide
Planning Goal 1 by requiring that notice of the proposed amendment be given and public hearings be held
prior to adoption. Consideration of the amendments will begin with a Planning Commission staff
introduction, followed by a public hearing on May 5, 2009. Thus, notification of the proposed
amendments and opportunities for public participation in these amendments were consistent with the
acknowledged citizen involvement program.
Notice of these two proposed amendments was given to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation
and Development on January 29, 2009. The DLCD notice was revised on March 4, 2009, to reflect a new
hearing date. Notice of this public hearing was mailed on April 14, 2009, to all interested parties
requesting such notice and owners of property located within 300 feet of the affected street segments, and
posted on April 3, 2009, pursuant to Eugene Code 9.7735(3). Notice of this public hearing was published
in the Register Guard newspaper on April 15, 2009.
We find that the process for adopting these amendments complies with Statewide Planning Goal 1 since it
complies with, and surpasses, the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
GOAL 2 - LAND USE PLANNING: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework
as a basis for all decisions and actions related to the use of land and to assure an adequate factual base
for such decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that provides a
basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the State in 1982 to be in
compliance with statewide planning goals. TransPlan is a functional plan of the Metro Plan, which forms
the basis for the Transportation Element of the Metro Plan and guides surface transportation
improvements in the metropolitan area. TransPlan was acknowledged by the State to be in compliance
with statewide planning goals.
These findings and the record show that there is an adequate factual base for City’s decision concerning
the amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental units
and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units. The Goal 2
coordination requirement is met when the adopting governmental body engages in an exchange, or invites
such an exchange, between the adopting body and any affected governmental unit and when the adopting
body uses the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with
the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of these amendments with all
affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the Oregon Department of Transportation,
Lane Council of Government, Downtown Eugene Inc./Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, Lane
County, City of Springfield, Eugene Neighborhood Liaison, and all Eugene neighborhood associations.
2
Additionally, in accordance with EC 9.7735(3), notice was mailed to the owners and occupants of
properties that are the subject of the proposed amendments and to property owners of record within 300
feet of the subject property.
There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent
with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
GOAL 3 - AGRICULTURAL LANDS: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
The amendments will not change or conflict with the policies of the Metro Plan or TransPlan regarding
agricultural lands since these amendments continue to reflect the growth planned for and accommodated
by the existing, acknowledged Metro Plan and TransPlan. Goal 3 is not relevant and the amendments do
not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
GOAL 4 - FOREST LAND: To conserve forest lands for forest use.
The amendments will not change any policies or plan diagram designations of the Metro Plan or
TransPlan, nor do the amendments impact any forest lands. Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do
not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 4. Therefore, the amendments comply
with Goal 4.
GOAL 5 - OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, NATURAL RESOURCES: To
conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources.
The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-acknowledgement plan
amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA
affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource
only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land
use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address
specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant
Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the
amended UGB area.
The amendments do not affect a Goal 5 resource. Specifically, the amendments do not create or amend a
list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant
Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be
conflicting uses with a particular Goal 5 resource site, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth
Boundary. Therefore, Goal 5 does not apply to these plan amendments.
3
GOAL 6 - AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY: To maintain and improve the
quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts of those discharges. TransPlan currently contains policies related to
nodal development, transportation demand management and the encouragement of additional
alternative modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles and pedestrian use. These policies are
related to the need to maintain and improve the air quality in the metropolitan area. The amendments
will not impact any of these policies and no new projects are proposed; the project list amendments
consist only of moving two projects from the Future list to the Financially Constrained list. Projects
already identified in TransPlan will be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 6.
GOAL 7 - AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS: To protect life and property from natural
disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and
property from natural hazards such as land slides. The amendments do not address potential natural
disasters. Further, the amendments do not affect the current restrictions on development in areas subject
to natural hazards, nor allow for new development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore, the
amendments are consistent with Goal 7.
GOAL 8 - RECREATIONAL NEEDS: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state
and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destinations resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreation facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the
provisions of those facilities in non-urban areas of the State. The amendments do not affect the current
provisions for recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities, nor will the amendments affect
access to existing or future recreational facilities. Further, the amendments do not change the Metro Plan
and TranPlan policies that support access to recreational facilities with the Metropolitan area and to
recreations opportunities outside the area or delete any planned transportation projects that would make
recreational facilities more available. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 8.
GOAL 9 - ECONOMY OF THE STATE: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for
a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
The amendments will not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands and will not change or
conflict with the economic policies of Metro Plan. The amendments do not change the TransPlan and
Metro Plan policies directed toward enhancing the economic opportunity available within the Eugene-
Springfield area by assuring adequate public facilities and infrastructure to provide a transportation
system that is efficient, safe, interconnected and economically viable and fiscally stable. Additionally, the
amendments do not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan policies related to the movement of goods;
those policies adopted to further the goal of using the public facilities infrastructure to support responsible
economic development. The Oregon Transportation Plan recognizes that goods movement of all types
makes a significant contribution to the region’s economy and wealth and contributes to residents’ quality
4
of life. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 9.
GOAL 10 – HOUSING: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
The amendments will not impact the supply of residential lands and will not result in any change or
conflict with the housing policies of the Metro Plan. Additionally, the amendments will not change any
of the policies in TransPlan and the Metro Plan related to nodal development and transit-supportive land
use patterns and development; those policies adopted to expand housing opportunities for the region’s
citizens. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 10.
GOAL 11 - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and
efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area has an acknowledged Public Facilities and Services Plan
(PFSP). The amendments will not result in any change or conflict with the PFSP.
GOAL 12 – TRANSPORTATION: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0000, et seq. The proposed amendments are consistent with all
applicable provisions of OAR 660-012-0016. Further, the amendments are consistent with, and required
by, the Regional Transportation Work Plan approved pursuant to OAR 660-012-0016(2)(b) by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission on October 16, 2008. The TPR requires compliance with
certain performance measures by either meeting a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction target or
obtaining approval of alternative measures. In May, 2001, the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area
sought, and obtained, the Land Conservation and Development Commission’s approval of an alternative
standard to accomplish reduced reliance on the automobile pursuant to OAR 660-012-0035(5). The
approved standard consists of six performance measures designed to reduce automobile reliance and
increase transportation choices. The six performance measures focus on nodal development, bus rapid
transit, transportation demand management and priority bikeway miles. The proposed amendments will
not interfere with the region’s ability to meet the approved alternative performance standards. Further,
the proposed amendments are necessary to comply with OAR 660-012-0015(3); that TPR provision
requiring cities to prepare, adopt and amend TSPs for lands within their planning jurisdiction to establish
a system of transportation facilities and services adequate to meet identified local transportation needs.
Specifically regarding the proposed amendment related to Project No. 333, a recent study showed that
West 11th at Terry Street (where the highway narrows from four lanes to two), is functioning at a Volume
to Capacity ratio (V/C) of 1.06, LOS E during the PM peak hour; below ODOT’s mobility standard for
this intersection of V/C 0.80 (Statewide highway, designated Freight Route) and City of Eugene LOS
standards are D or better.
The TPR states that when amendments to a functional plan would significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the allowed
land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards (level of service,
volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. Adoption of the amendments will not significantly affect an
existing or planned transportation facility.
5
Based on these findings, the amendments are consistent with Goal 12.
GOAL 13 - ENERGY CONSERVATION: To conserve energy.
The Energy Goal is a general planning goal that calls for land and uses developed on the land to be
managed and controlled so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound
economic principles. The proposed amendments will not change the Metro Plan or TransPlan provisions
related to promoting more compact development, encouraging the use of alternate modes of transportation
and providing a transportation system design to increase the efficiency of travel wherever possible.
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Goal 13.
GOAL 14 – URBANIZATION: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
The amendments will not change the TransPlan and Metro Plan provisions adopted to preserve the
distinction between urban and rural uses through the development of policies and programs that provide
for more efficient urban uses within the UGB, thus preserving rural lands for rural uses. Accordingly, the
amendments comply with Goal 14.
GOAL 15 - WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the
natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The Willamette River Greenway area with the Urban Growth Boundary is governed by existing local
provisions that have been acknowledged as complying with Goal 15. Those provisions will be unchanged
by the amendments. The amendments will not change TransPlan’s and the Metro Plan’s provisions
related to the protection and maintenance of the scenic, historical, economic and recreational qualities of
lands along the Willamette River. Further, the amendments will not affect TransPlan’s and the Metro
Plan’s compliance with Goal 15. Therefore, the amendments comply with Goal 15.
GOALS 16-19 – COASTAL GOALSEstuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelines, Beaches and
: (
Dunes, and Ocean Resources)
There are no estuarine resources, shorelines, beaches, dunes, or ocean resources located within the Metro
Plan or TransPlan boundary. Accordingly, Goals 16, 17, 18, and 19 are not applicable.
Criterion B. Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
TransPlan guides regional transportation system planning and development in the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area. The region covered by TransPlan is the “TransPlan Study Area”, which is an area
extending beyond the UGB and Metro Plan boundary that is used for transportation modeling purposes.
The proposed amendments to the Metro Plan and TransPlan will not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent. Specifically, the Metro Plan and TransPlan projects lists will be simultaneously amended to
ensure that the two plans have identical lists. Additionally, the amendments are consistent with the one
applicable Metro Plan finding discussed below.
6
F.9 Adopt by reference, as part of the Metro Plan, the 20-Year Capital Investment Actions
project lists contained in TransPlan. Project timing and estimated costs are not adopted as
policy.
The proposed amendments to the project lists contained in TransPlan will be adopted by reference into
the Metro Plan.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments meet all applicable standards and criteria in EC 9.7730(3).
00226377.DOC;2
7
߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ Þ
Attachment A:
Regional Transportation Work Plan
September 8, 2008
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
MAJORWORK PLAN MILESTONE
th
4 Quarter 2008
Transportation Work Plan
October 1 – Draft submitted to Land
Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC)
October 16 – LCDC approves
Post-Acknowledgement Plan Amendment
PAPA processes:
(PAPA)
Removecompleted projects—Springfield initiates
Finalizeschedule and responsibleparties for
RemoveWEP—Eugene initiated August 2008
initiation/participation/co-adoption, including:
Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to
Financially Constrained list for consistency with
Remove completed projects
RTP—Initiated by Eugene and Springfield for their
RemoveWEP
respective projects involving lands entirely within
MoveODOT projects from Illustrative to
existing city limits
Financially Constrained list for consistency
Adjust plan horizon—Springfield initiates
with RTP
Adjust planhorizon
Begin Work on Local Eugene & Springfield
Transportation System Plans (TSP)
Springfieldwork scope completeand Request
For Proposals (RFP) issued for consultant
services in November
Eugenecompletes draft TransportationSystem
Plan (TSP) work scope, including public
involvement plan
Springfield Buildable Lands Analysis (BLA) and
EugeneComprehensive Lands Assessment
(CLA) are progressing
Discuss resource needswith state and identify
funding to comply with mandates for local TSP’s
and Regional TSP (RTSP)
Eugenecontinues work on Pedestrian and
Bicycle element of TSP update through
Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Update in
five south hills neighborhoods
LaneCounty Population Forecasting Work Program in
Process
Phase 2: Population Forecast Development
LaneCounty Board begins discussionson Metro Plan
policy direction including rural reservesconcepts
(additional work program elements to unfold based
upon future Board direction)
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ ï ±º è
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
MAJORWORK PLAN MILESTONE
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
Continue RTSP framework discussion
Create definition of regional system
Agree on geographic boundary
Determine relationship to or method of
incorporation within other plans
Public Involvement
Develop multi-agency public involvement
plan
Determine public outreach components
Identify public outreach schedule relative to
work schedule
2035 RTP Update
Develop Outline of Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) Update content based on federal
regulations and survey of best practices
Define relationship to other plans
Springfield, HB 3337 Work:
Draft Commercial/Industrial Lands Inventory
Economic Opportunities Analysis (EOA)&
Economic DevelopmentStrategy presented
Alternative Analysis begins (includes
employment and residential lands)
st
1 Quarter 2009
PAPA Adoption(s)
PAPA processes:
Appropriate jurisdictions to amend TransPlan to
Removecompleted projects—requires co-
achieve RTP-TSP consistency
adoption by Lane County, Eugene, and
Springfield
Remove completed projects
Remove WEP—Requires co-adoptionbyEugene
RemoveWEP
and Lane County
MoveODOT projects from Illustrative to
Move ODOT projects from Illustrative to
Financially Constrained list for consistency
Financially Constrained list for consistency with
with November, 2007 RTP project lists
November, 2007 RTP project lists—requires
Adjust planhorizon
adoption by Eugene and Springfield for their
respective projects involving lands entirely within
existing city limits
Adjust plan horizon—requiresco-adoption by
LaneCounty, Eugene and Springfield
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ î ±º è
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
MAJORWORK PLAN MILESTONE
Eugene andSpringfield Local TSP’s in process
Eugene work scope completeandRFPissued
for consultant services
State resources identified and committed for TSP
work
Data collection
Existing conditions inventory
Policy scan
Public Involvement
EugeneWest 11th Avenue Transportation
Corridor Study completed
West Eugene Collaborative (WEC)
recommendations for landuse and transportation
in west Eugene finalized
LaneCounty Population Forecasting Work Program in
Process
Phase 2: Population Forecast Development
Continues
Performance Measures
Assess existing performance measures in
TransPlan
Estimate Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT)/capita for 2004, 2015 and 2031
Confirm vehicle trip reduction requirements
and determine relationship between RTSP
and TSP’s in meeting the requirements
Undertake additional performance measure
assessment and reporting at city level
Complete reporting on TransPlan
benchmarks for 2005, including qualitative
discussion about nodal implementation
Check-in on status of Commercial, Industrial, and
Residential Lands Analysis for Eugeneand
Springfield
West Eugene Collaborative (WEC) recommendations for
land use and transportation in west Eugene finalized
RTP update continues
Springfield HB 3337 Work Alternative Analysis
completed including employment and residential
lands
Study Area Identification
Agricultural Soils and Exceptions Areas
UnbuildableAreas
Public Facilities Analysis
TransportationAnalysis
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ í ±º è
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
MAJORWORK PLAN MILESTONE
nd
2 Quarter 2009
Performance Measures
Begin development of Performance
Measure position paper
Identify potential additional
actions/procedures for successful
performance measure implementation
EugeneComprehensive Lands Assessment (CLA) basic
data available
LaneCounty Population Forecasting Work Program in
Process:
Phase 3: Population Forecast Adoption Process
Begins
TSP’s continue in process
Eugenecompletes policydiscussions: Rasor Park &
Walnut Station Mixed Use Centers, Opportunity
Siting, Infill Standards, South Hills Habitat Study
RTP update continues
rd
3 Quarter 2009
Population Forecast Work Complete
Eugene, Springfield finalize safe harbor numbers
LaneCounty finalizes and adopts county-wide
population forecast
Evaluate Eugene & Springfield population
forecasts safe harbor numbers relative to Lane
County population forecast outcomes
Regional Transportation System Plan (RTSP)
Draft RTSP structural and policy framework
based upon elected official discussions and
public input
Begin developing RTSP policy language
Public Involvement
Publish transportation work outcomes to
date for public comment, as appropriate
Seek public comment on regional
transportation framework
Scenario development for Eugene CLA
Preferred alternative chosen for West Eugene EmX
Extension
TSPs continue in process
RTP update continues
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ ì ±º è
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
MAJORWORK PLAN MILESTONE
Springfield HB 3337 Work: Population and Land
Inventory Analysis Adjustments
CoordinatedPopulationForecast incorporated
into Springfield Land Inventory and Needs
Analysis
Adjust Land Needs Analysis as needed based
upon newcoordinated population forecast
th
4 Quarter 2009
Performance Measures
Consider and develop adjustments to
performance and/or implementation
measures to achieve benchmarks
Consider modified benchmarks and
performance measures for the extended
planning period
Eugene CLA completed
Determination of land needs
Refinescenario development and begin policy
discussion for implementation
TSPs continue in process
Target Springfield TSP Final Draft
RTP update continues
st
1 Quarter 2010
Springfield Council Adopts HB 3337 Implementation
Actions either as refinement to existing MetroPlan or
as stand-alone Springfield Comprehensive Plan
New land inventories
New Urban Growth Boundary
Newpolicies
LaneCounty co-adopts Springfield Implementation
Measures
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP:
Develop work program for addressing CLA
determination
Refinework program for updating TSP to
coordinate with comprehensive plan work
program
January 2010: MPO deadline for new land use
framework for development of 2035 RTP scenarios
Continue discussions and refinement of regional
transportation concepts
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ ë ±º è
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
MAJORWORK PLAN MILESTONE
TSP progress continues
Refine Springfield TSP based on adoption of HB 3337
implementation actions
RTP update continues
nd
2 Quarter 2010
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP
Finalize work program
Securefunding
Develop draft community engagement plan
Proposalssolicited
Springfield amends Final Draft TSP in conformance with
20 year land supply and growth scenario and adopts
Includes performance measures necessary to
comply with TransportationPlanningRule
LaneCounty co-adopts Springfield TSP and necessary
county TSP amendments
RTP update continues
rd
3 Quarter 2010
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP
Department Advisory Committee formed
Technical Advisory Committee formed
Community outreach started, website created
Consultantshired
Record of Decision expected for West Eugene
EmX Extension
RTP update continues
th
4 Quarter 2010
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP
Includes performance measures necessary to
comply with TransportationPlanningRule
Models created for scenarios
Scenarios drafted, reviewed by advisory
committees
Community outreach continues
RTP update continues
st
1 Quarter 2011
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP
Scenariosrefined
Transportation options studies
Publicationscreated, website updated
Community outreach continues
January 2011: MPO deadline for final land use
framework for 2035 RTP
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ ê ±º è
Ongoing Coordinated Local &
MPO Planning Activities
MAJORWORK PLAN MILESTONE
nd
2 Quarter 2011
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP
CommunityWorkshop(s)
Resultscompiled
Draft 2035 RTP available for public review
rd
3 Quarter 2011
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP
Reports to Planning Commission/City Council
Scenarios refined, reviewed by advisory
committees
Community outreach continues
th
4 Quarter 2011
RTSP
Policy developed based upon multi-
jurisdictional elected official direction
Components drafted for public comment
Public outreach on RTSP framework
2035 RTP Adopted
2012
Eugene ComprehensivePlan/TSP
Draft comprehensive plan and TSP available for
review
Community outreach continues
PlanningCommission Public Hearing
Planning Commissiondeliberation,
recommendation
City Council Public Hearing
City Councildeliberation
Adoption
LaneCounty co-adopts Eugene Implementation
Measures
2013
RTSP
Take Action to Meet RTSP requirements,
including multi-jurisdictional co-adoption
actions
Take action as necessary to eliminate
TransPlan, including multi-jurisdictional co-
adoption actions
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ é ±º è
ACRONYM LIST
BLABuildable Lands Analysis (City of Springfield)
CLAComprehensive Lands Assessment (City of Eugene)
EOAEconomic Opportunities Analysis
HBHouse Bill (HB 3337)
LCDCLandConservation and Development Commission
MPOMetropolitanPlanningOrganization
ODOTOregon Department of Transportation
PAPAPost Acknowledgement Plan Amendment
RFPRequestForProposals
RTPRegional Transportation Plan
RTSPRegional Transportation System Plan
TSPTransportation System Plan
VMTVehicle Miles Traveled
WECWest Eugene Collaborative
WEPWest Eugene Parkway
ݱ¾«®¹ñÛ«¹»²»ñÍ°®·²¹º·»´¼ñÔ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ λ¹·±²¿´ Ì®¿²°±®¬¿¬·±² ɱ®µ д¿²
Í»°¬»³¾»® èô îððè ÐßÙÛ è ±º è
ATTACHMENT C
Ö Ê Ó × Î Ø É Í Ö × Ç Õ × Î ×
ïÛÃ
ùÓÈà ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î×
ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ
Ù
Í ñÇÊÈ ã×ÓÈ×Ê
å×ÉÈ
ÈÔ ûÆ×ÎÇ×
÷ÇÕ×Î× íÊ×ÕÍÎ
ÑÇÊÈÏÃ×ÓÈ×ÊüÙÓ×ÇÕ×Î×ÍÊÇÉ
ê× è×ÉÈÓÏÍÎà ÖÍÊ ìÇÚÐÓÙ ô×ÛÊÓÎÕ óÈ×Ï ÍÎ å×ÉÈ ÈÔ åÓØ×ÎÓÎÕ ïÛÃ
ø×ÛÊ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ùÍÏÏÓÉÉÓÍÎ×ÊÉ ÛÎØ ùÓÈà éÈÛÖÖ
èÔÛÎÑ ÃÍÇ ÖÍÊ Ê×Ù×ÓÆÓÎÕ ÈÔÓÉ È×ÉÈÓÏÍÎà ÍÎ ÏÍÆÓÎÕ ÈÅÍ íøíè ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈÉ ÖÊÍÏ ÈÔ× öÇÈÇÊ× ÈÍ ÈÔ×
öÓÎÛÎÙÓÛÐÐà ùÍÎÉÈÊÛÓÎ×Ø ÐÓÉÈ å ÈÔ ûÆ×ÎÇ× ÖÊÍÏ õÊ××Î ôÓÐÐ êÍÛØ ÈÍ è×ÊÊà éÈÊ××È ÛÎØ ú×ÐÈÐÓÎ×
ôÓÕÔÅÛà ÖÊÍÏ êÓÆ×Ê êÍÛØ ÈÍ ø×ÐÈÛ ôÓÕÔÅÛà ÷ÇÕ×Î× lÐ× ïû
éÌ×ÙÓlÙÛÐÐà öÊÓ×ÎØÉ ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÛÉ Û ÎÍÎÌÊÍlÈ ÌÇÚÐÓÙ ÓÎÈ×Ê×ÉÈ ÈÊÛÎÉÌÍÊÈÛÈÓÍÎ ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× ÛÎØ
×ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐ ÅÛÈÙÔØÍÕ ÍÊÕÛÎÓÂÛÈÓÍÎ ÛÉ Å×ÐÐ ÛÉ ó ÛÉ Û ÌÊÓÆÛÈ× ÓÎØÓÆÓØÇÛÐ ÖÍÊ ÌÇÊÌÍÉ×É ÍÖ
ÉÈÛÎØÓÎÕ ÅÓÉÔ ÈÍ ÍÌÌÍÉ× ÈÔ× ÌÊÍÌÍÉÛÐ ÈÍ ÌÇÉÔ ÇÌ ÈÔ× ÌÊÓÍÊÓÈà ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÊÍÛØ ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈ ÈÍ ØÍÇÚÐ× ÈÔ×
ÅÓØÈÔ ÍÖ å×ÉÈ ÈÔ Ú×ÈÅ××Î è×ÊÊà ÛÎØ õÊ××ÎÔÓÐÐ
èÔÓÉ ÓÉ Û È×ÊÊÓÚÐ× ÉÌÊÛÅÐÓÎØÇÙÓÎÕ ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈ Û Ê×ÛÐ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉÚÐÍÛÈ×Ê ÈÔÛÈ ÛØØÉ Î×Å ÐÛÎ×ÏÓÐ×É ÍÖ
ÊÍÛØÅÛà ÖÛÊ ÍÇÈÉÓØ× ÈÔ× ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ óÈtÉ ÈÔ× Î×ÄÈ ÉÈ×Ì ÓÎ Û É×ÊÓ×É ÍÖ ÉÌÊÛÅÐ ØÍÏÓÎÍÉ
ÈÔÛÈ ÅÍÇÐØ ÍÌ×Î ÇÌ ÈÔ× Å×ÉÈ×ÊÎ ×ØÕ× ÍÖ ÈÔ× çõú ÖÍÊ Û ÚÓÕ ÚÐÛÉÈ ÍÖ ÓÎÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈ× Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ
óÈtÉ Û ÙÐÛÉÉÓÙ ×ÄÛÏÌÐ× ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÑÓÎØ ÍÖ ÍÇÈØÛÈ×Ø ÛÌÌÊÍÛÙÔ ÈÍ ÈÊÛÖlÙ ×ÎÕÓÎ××ÊÓÎÕ ÇÎØ×Ê ÅÔÓÙÔ
ÊÍÛØÅÛÃÉ ÛÊ× ÅÓØ×Î×Ø ÛÉ Û ÏÛÈÈ×Ê ÍÖ ÙÍÇÊÉ× ÅÓÈÔ ÐÓÈÈÐ× ÈÔÍÇÕÔÈ ÈÍ ÈÔ× Õ×Î×ÊÛÐ ÙÍÎÉ×ËÇ×ÎÙ×É
åÔÛÈtÉ ÏÍÊ× ÈÔ× ÌÊÍÌÍÉ×Ø ÅÓØ×ÎÓÎÕ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÊÓÕÔÈ ÍÖ ÅÛà ÈÔÊ×ÛÈ×ÎÉ ÍÖlÙÓÛÐ ö×ÎØ×ÊtÉ ÚÐÇ×
ÚÇÈÈ×Êkà ÙÊÓÈÓÙÛÐ ÔÛÚÓÈÛÈ ÓÎ ÈÔ× ×ÄÈ×ÎÉÓÆ× ÎÛÈÇÊÛÐ ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÈÔÛÈ ÛÊ× ÌÛÊÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ×ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕ ÊÇÊÛÐ ÙÔÛÊÛÙÈ×Ê
ÍÖ ÍÇÈ×Ê å×ÉÈ ÈÔ óÉ ÈÔÛÈ Ê×ÛÐÐà ÈÔ× ×ÎÆÓÊÍÎÏ×ÎÈÛÐ ØÓÊ×ÙÈÓÍÎ ÓÎ ÅÔÓÙÔ ÈÔ× ùÓÈà ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÅÛÎÈÉ
ÈÍ Ú× Ô×ÛØÓÎÕý
öÓÎÛÐÐà ÈÔ×Ê× ÓÉ ÎÍ ÉÇÚÉÈÛÎÈÓÛÐ Ø×ÏÍÎÉÈÊÛÈ×Ø Î××Ø ÖÍÊ ÈÔÓÉ ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈ x ÓÈ ÒÇÉÈ ÙÍÎÎ×ÙÈÉ ÍÇÈ ÈÍ ÏÓÐ×É
ÍÖ ÙÍÎÉÈÊÓÙÈ×Ø ÈÅÍÐÛÎ× ÊÇÊÛÐ ÔÓÕÔÅÛà x ÛÎØ ÛÈ ÈÔÓÉ Æ×Êà ÈÓÏ× ÍÇÊ Ð×ÕÓÉÐÛÈÍÊÉ ÛÊ× ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÌÊÍÙ×ÉÉ
ÍÖ ÖÇÎØÓÎÕ Û ÉÇÚÉÈÛÎÈÓÆ× ÉÈÇØà ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÅÔÍÐ× Ð×ÎÕÈÔ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ôÓÕÔÅÛÃ
ÙÍÊÊÓØÍÊ ÖÊÍÏ å×ÉÈ
÷ÇÕ×Î× ÈÍ æ×Î×ÈÛ èÔÛÈ ÉÈÇØà ÓÖ ØÍÎ× Å×ÐÐ ÓÉ ÐÓÑ×Ðà ÈÍ ÉÔÍÅ ÈÔÓÉ ÊÍÛØ ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈ ÓÉ ÇÎÎ×Ù×ÉÉÛÊÃ
×Æ×Î ÖÍÊ ÈÊÛÖlÙ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎ ûÎØ ÓÖ ÓÈ ÉÔÍÅ×Ø ÍÈÔ×ÊÅÓÉ× ÈÔ×Ê×tÉ ÛÐÅÛÃÉ ÈÓÏ× ÈÍ ÚÇÓÐØ ÈÔ× Î×Å
ÐÛÎ×É ÐÛÈ×Ê ÅÔÓÐ× ÓÈ ÓÉ ÆÓÊÈÇÛÐÐà ÓÏÌÍÉÉÓÚÐ× ÈÍ ÚÛÙÑ ÈÔ×Ï ÛÎØ ÈÔ×ÓÊ ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ
èÔ× ÌÊÍÌÍÉÛÐ ÓÉ ÙÐ×ÛÊÐà ÙÍÎÈÊÛÊà ÈÍ ÈÔ× ÓÎÈ×ÎÈ ÛÎØ Ð×ÈÈ×Ê ÍÖ É×Æ×ÊÛÐ ÉÈÛÈ× ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÕÍÛÐÉ ÛÉ Å×ÐÐ ÛÉ
ÙÐ×ÛÊÐà ÙÍÎÈÊÛÊà ÈÍ É×Æ×ÊÛÐ ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î×tÉ ÍÅÎ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÏÛÎÛÕ×Ï×ÎÈ ÌÍÐÓÙÓ×É
ìÛÕ× ÍÖ
ÅÅÅöÊÓ×ÎØÉÍÖ÷ÇÕ×Î×ÍÊÕ
èÔ× ÌÊÍÌÍÉ×Ø ÅÓØ×ÎÓÎÕ ÍÖ ÊÇÊÛÐ å×ÉÈ ÈÔ ÅÍÇÐØ ÉÇÚÉÈÛÎÈÓÛÐÐà ÓÎØÇÙ× Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÓÎ ×ÄÛÙÈÐÃ
ÈÔ× ÅÊÍÎÕ ÌÐÛÙ×É ÙÍÎÈÊÛÊà ÈÍ èÊÛÎÉÌÐÛÎ ÛÎØ ÍÈÔ×Ê ÌÍÐÓÙÓ×É óÎlÐÐ ÎÍØÛÐ Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÛÎØ ÍÈÔ×Ê
ÓÎÙÊ×ÛÉ×É ÓÎ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ Ø×ÎÉÓÈà ÛÊÍÇÎØ ÈÔ× ÇÊÚÛÎ ×ØÕ× x ÓÎ ÍÇÈÐÃÓÎÕ ÔÓÕÔæïè ÌÛÊÈÉ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ÇÊÚÛÎ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÛÊ×Û x ÛÊ× ÙÍÇÎÈ×ÊÌÊÍØÇÙÈÓÆ× ÓÎ ÈÔ× É×ÎÉ× ÈÔÛÈ ÈÔ×à ÙÊ×ÛÈ× ÉÇÚÉÈÛÎÈÓÛÐ Î×ÕÛÈÓÆ×
ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ ÅÔÓÐ× ÖÛÓÐÓÎÕ ÈÍ ÛÙÔÓ×Æ× ÈÔ× ÌÍÉÓÈÓÆ× ÌÐÛÎÎ×Ø ÍÚÒ×ÙÈÓÆ×É ÍÖ ÓÎlÐÐ õÓÆ×Î ÈÔ× Î×ÕÛÈÓÆ×
ÙÍÉÈÚ×Î×lÈ ÍÖ ÈÔÓÉ ÈÃÌ× ÍÖ ÓÎlÐÐ ÛÉ Û ÏÛÈÈ×Ê ÍÖ ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÌÍÐÓÙà ÛÎØ ÓÏÌÐ×Ï×ÎÈÛÈÓÍÎ ÓÈ ÉÔÍÇÐØ Ú×
ÛÆÍÓØ×Ø
èÍ ØÓÊ×ÙÈ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈ×Ðà ÅÔÓÐ× Ï××ÈÓÎÕ ÉÈÛÈ×ÛØÍÌÈ×Ø ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ
ÈÛÊÕ×ÈÉ ÈÔ× ÌÊÓÍÊÓÈà ÖÍÙÇÉ ÉÔÍÇÐØ Ú× ÉÔÓÖÈ×Ø ÛÅÛà ÖÊÍÏ ÓÎlÐÐ ÓÎ ×ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ
Î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÉ ÈÍÅÛÊØ ÏÇÐÈÓÉÈÍÊà Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐ ÏÓÄ×ØÇÉ× ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÐÛÊÕ× ÖÊÛÙÈÓÍÎ ÍÖ
ÇÊÚÛÎ ÙÍÊ× ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÙÇÊÊ×ÎÈÐà ÂÍÎ×Ø ÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐ
õ×ÍÕÊÛÌÔà ÓÉ öÇÎØÛÏ×ÎÈÛÐ
éÓÎÙ× ÈÔ× ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× ÙÍØ× ÇÌØÛÈ× ðçùç ÍÖ
ÍÇÊ ÐÍÙÛÐ ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× Ê×ÕÇÐÛÈÓÍÎÉ ÓÎ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÔÛÆ×
×ÎÙÍÇÊÛÕ×Ø Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÓÎlÐÐ úÇÈ Å× ÑÎÍÅ ÈÔÛÈ ÛÉ Å×ÐÐ ÛÉ ÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈÓÎÕ ÉÍÏ× ÛÏÍÇÎÈ ÍÖ
ÕÊÍÅÈÔ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÓÎlÐÐ ÛÐÉÍ ÙÛÇÉ×É ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ ÍÎ ×ÉÈÛÚÐÓÉÔ×Ø Î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÉ ùÐ×ÛÊÐà Å× ÛÊ× ÎÍÈ
×ÎÙÍÇÊÛÕÓÎÕ ÓÎlÐÐ ÖÍÊ ÓÈÉ ÍÅÎ ÉÛÑ× ÚÇÈ ÖÍÊ ÉÌ×ÙÓlÙ ÉÈÛÈ×Ø Ê×ÛÉÍÎÉ
óÎlÐÐ ÓÉ ×ÎÙÍÇÊÛÕ×Ø ÓÎ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÓÎ ÍÊØ×Ê ÈÍ Ï××È ÌÛÊÈÓÙÇÐÛÊ ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈà ÕÍÛÐÉ ×ÉÌ×ÙÓÛÐÐà ÖÍÊ ÈÔ×
Ú×Î×lÈÉ ÍÖ Ø×ÎÉÓlÙÛÈÓÍÎ ÛÎØ ÙÍÏÌÛÙÈ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ óÎ ÈÔ× íÊ×ÕÍÎ ÉÈÛÈ×ÅÓØ× ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ
ÖÊÛÏ×ÅÍÊÑ ÈÔ×É× Ú×Î×lÈÉ ÛÊ× ÐÛÊÕ×Ðà ÍÊÕÛÎÓÂ×Ø ÛÊÍÇÎØ ÈÔ× ÓÏÌÍÊÈÛÎÈ ÛÎØ Ï×ÛÉÇÊÛÚÐ× ÕÍÛÐ ÍÖ
Ê×ØÇÙÓÎÕ Æ×ÔÓÙÐ×É ÏÓÐ×É ÈÊÛÆ×Ð×Ø æïè
åÔÛÈ ÓÖ ÈÔ×Ê× ÛÊ× ÌÛÊÈÓÙÇÐÛÊ ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÅÔ×Ê× ÓÈ ÙÛÎ Ú× ÉÔÍÅÎ ÉÃÉÈ×ÏÛÈÓÙÛÐÐà ÈÔÛÈ ÓÎlÐÐ
ØÍ×ÉÎtÈ ÙÍÎÈÊÓÚÇÈ× ÈÍ ÏÍÉÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ× Õ×Î×ÊÛÐ ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈà Ú×Î×lÈÉ ÍÖ ÙÍÏÌÛÙÈ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÛÎØ ×Æ×Î ÔÛÉ
Î×ÕÛÈÓÆ× ×ÖÖ×ÙÈÉý óÖ ÈÔ×Ê× ÛÊ× ÉÇÙÔ ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÅÔÛÈ ÌÇÊÌÍÉ× ÅÍÇÐØ Ú× É×ÊÆ×Ø Úà ×ÎÙÍÇÊÛÕÓÎÕ ÍÊ
ÛÐÐÍÅÓÎÕ ÓÎlÐÐ ÓÎ ÈÔ×Ïý
ðÍÙÛÈÓÎÕ ÛÎØ Ê×ÕÇÐÛÈÓÎÕ ÓÎlÐÐ ÓÉ Û ÚÛÐÛÎÙÓÎÕ ÛÙÈ Ú×ÈÅ××Î ÉÍÏ× Õ×Î×ÊÛÐ ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈà Ú×Î×lÈÉ ÍÎ
ÍÎ× ÔÛÎØ ÛÎØ ÉÍÏ× ÐÍÙÛÐ ÛÎØ ÙÇÏÇÐÛÈÓÆ× ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ ÍÎ ÈÔ× ÍÈÔ×Ê ÔÛÎØ
óÎ ÙÍÊ× Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ Î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÉ ÈÔ× ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ ÍÖ ÓÎÙÍÏÌÛÈÓÚÐ× ÓÎlÐÐ ÙÛÎ Ú× É×ÊÓÍÇÉ Ø×ÕÊÛØÛÈÓÍÎ
ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÙÔÛÊÛÙÈ×Ê ÛÎØ ËÇÛÐÓÈà ÍÖ ×ÉÈÛÚÐÓÉÔ×Ø ÙÇÐÈÇÊÛÐ ÛÎØ ÌÔÃÉÓÙÛÐ ÖÛÚÊÓÙÉ ÅÔÓÙÔ ÛÊ× ÉÍÏ× ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ÕÊ×ÛÈ×ÉÈ ÙÍÐÐ×ÙÈÓÆ× ÛÉÉ×ÈÉ ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î×
óÎ ×ØÕ× Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ Î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÉ ÈÔ× ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ ÍÖ ÓÎlÐÐ ÙÛÎ ÛÐÉÍ Ú× É×ÊÓÍÇÉ ÐÍÙÑÓÎÕ ÓÎ
Õ×ÍÕÊÛÌÔÓÙÛÐÐÃÚÛÉ×Ø ÓÎÙÊ×ÛÉ×É ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÛÏÍÇÎÈ ÍÖ ØÊÓÆÓÎÕ Ì×Ê Ì×ÊÉÍÎ ÓÎ ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÅÔ×Ê× ÛÐÈ×ÊÎÛÈÓÆ×
ÏÍØ×É ÍÖ ÏÍÚÓÐÓÈà ÛÊ× ÛÐÉÍ ØÓÖlÙÇÐÈ ÈÍ ÌÊÍÆÓØ× ×ÖlÙÓ×ÎÈÐÃ
óÈ ÓÉ Å×ÐÐ ÑÎÍÅÎ ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÉÏÛÊÈ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈà ÈÔÛÈ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ Ø×ÎÉÓÈà È×ÎØÉ ÈÍ ×ÎÙÍÇÊÛÕ×
ÅÛÐÑÛÚÐ× Ê×ØÇÙ×Øæïè íÇÊ ÕÊ××Î ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈà Î××ØÉ ÈÍ ÇÎØ×ÊÉÈÛÎØ ÈÔ× ÇÎØ×ÊÐÃÓÎÕ ÚÛÉ×É ÖÍÊ
ÈÔÓÉ ÌÔ×ÎÍÏ×ÎÍÎ ÛÎØ ÇÉ× ×ÖÖ×ÙÈÓÆ× ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÈÍ ØÓÊ×ÙÈ ÛÎØ Ø×ÉÓÕÎ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÈÍ Ô×ÐÌ
Ê×ØÇÙ× ÊÛÈÔ×Ê ÈÔÛÎ ÓÎÙÊ×ÛÉ× ÕÊ××ÎÔÍÇÉ× ÕÛÉ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ
øÊÓÆÓÎÕ øÓÉÈÛÎÙ×É ÛÎØ ùÐÓÏÛÈ× ùÔÛÎÕ×
ìÛÕ×
ÍÖ
ÅÅÅöÊÓ×ÎØÉÍÖ÷ÇÕ×Î×ÍÊÕ
ìÐÛÎÉ ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÌÍÐÓÙà ÛÎØ ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× ÙÍØ× Å× Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌ ÓÎ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÈÍØÛà ÉÔÍÇÐØ Ú× ÛÓÏ×Ø ÛÐÍÎÕ
ÅÓÈÔ ÍÈÔ×Ê ÍÚÒ×ÙÈÓÆ×É ÛÈ Ï××ÈÓÎÕ ÈÔ× ÉÈÛÈ× ÛØÍÌÈ×Ø ÕÍÛÐÉ ÖÍÊ ÕÊ××ÎÔÍÇÉ× ÕÛÉ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ ÛÉ
×ÎÛÙÈ×Ø ÓÎ íÊ×ÕÍÎ ÐÛÉÈ Ã×ÛÊ ôú ÉÓÕÎ×Ø ÍÎ ûÇÕÇÉÈ
ÍÖ Û
Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎ Ú×ÐÍÅ
Ð×Æ×ÐÉ ÚÃ
ÛÎØ Û Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎ Ú×ÐÍÅ
Ð×Æ×ÐÉ ÚÃ
éÇÚÉÈÛÎÈÓÛÐ ÛØØÓÈÓÍÎÛÐ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ ÓÎ Æ×ÔÓÙÐ× ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ ÅÓÐÐ Ú× Î××Ø×Ø èÔ× ÌÊÓÏÛÊà ÛØØÓÈÓÍÎÛÐ
ÉÍÇÊÙ× ÍÊ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ ÓÉ Ê×ØÇÙ×Ø ØÊÓÆÓÎÕ Ó× Ê×ØÇÙ×Ø æïè ÓÎ ÚÍÈÔ ÈÔ× Ì×Ê ÙÛÌÓÈÛ ÛÎØ
ÍÆ×ÊÛÐÐ ÈÍÈÛÐ É×ÎÉ× óÎ ÖÛÙÈ ÈÔ× õÍÆ×ÊÎÍÊtÉ ùÐÓÏÛÈ× ùÔÛÎÕ× óÎÈ×ÕÊÛÈÓÍÎ õÊÍÇÌ Ê×ÌÍÊÈ×Ø ÈÔÛÈ
wê×ØÇÙÓÎÕ æïè ÓÉ ÉÓÏÌÐà ÈÔ× ÉÓÎÕÐ× ÏÍÉÈ ×ÖÖ×ÙÈÓÆ× ÅÛà ÈÍ Ê×ØÇÙ× ÕÊ××ÎÔÍÇÉ× ÕÛÉ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉv
öÓÎÛÐ ê×ÌÍÊÈ ÈÍ ÈÔ× õÍÆ×ÊÎÍÊ û öÊÛÏ×ÅÍÊÑ ÖÍÊ ûØØÊ×ÉÉÓÎÕ êÛÌÓØ ùÐÓÏÛÈ× ùÔÛÎÕ× éÈÛÈ× ÍÖ
íÊ×ÕÍÎ òÛÎÇÛÊÃ
Ì
èÔ× wõÍÆ×ÊÎÍÊtÉ æ×ÔÓÙÐ× ÷ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ åÍÊÑÕÊÍÇÌ ê×ÌÍÊÈv ÎÍÈ×É ÈÔÛÈ wèÔ× íÊ×ÕÍÎ ø×ÌÛÊÈÏ×ÎÈ ÍÖ
èÊÛÎÉÌÍÊÈÛÈÓÍÎtÉ íøíè ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈÓÍÎ ÖÍÊ ÈÔ× Î×ÄÈ È×Î Ã×ÛÊÉ ÓÉ ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× ÛÎÎÇÛÐ æïè ÕÊÍÅÈÔ
ÎÍÎÙÍÏÌÍÇÎØ×Ø æïè ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÓÉ Û ÙÍÏÚÓÎÛÈÓÍÎ ÍÖ ÌÍÌÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÛÎØ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÓÎ æïè Ì×Ê
ÙÛÌÓÈÛv îÍÆ×ÏÚ×Ê
Ì
èÍ ÛÙÔÓ×Æ× ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ Å× Î××Ø ÈÍ Ê×ØÇÙ× Ì×ÊÙÛÌÓÈÛ ÇÉÛÕ× Ó× æïè Ø××ÌÐà ×ÎÍÇÕÔ
ÈÍ ÙÍÇÎÈ×ÊÛÙÈ ÈÔ× ×ÖÖ×ÙÈ ÍÖ ÓÎÙÊ×ÛÉÓÎÕ ÌÍÌÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ
åÔÓÐ× ÈÔ× ÐÛÈ×ÉÈ ÙÐÓÏÛÈ× ÉÙÓ×ÎÙ× ÉÇÕÕ×ÉÈÉ ÈÔÛÈ Û Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎ ÓÉ ÌÊÍÚÛÚÐà ÎÍÈ Û Ø××Ì ×ÎÍÇÕÔ ÙÇÈ
ÈÍ ÉÈÛÚÓÐÓÂ× ÈÔ× ÕÐÍÚÛÐ ÙÐÓÏÛÈ× ÈÔÛÈ ÕÍÛÐ ÓÉ ÖÛÊ ×ÎÍÇÕÔ ÛÅÛà ÈÔÛÈ ÓÎÔ×Ê×ÎÈ ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÇÎÙ×ÊÈÛÓÎÈÓ×É
ÏÛÑ× ÈÔ× ØÓÖÖ×Ê×ÎÙ× Ê×ÐÛÈÓÆ×Ðà ÇÎÓÏÌÍÊÈÛÎÈ ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÉÔÍÊÈ È×ÊÏ óÖ Å× ÙÛÎ ÌÐÛÎ ÎÍÅ ÖÍÊ ×ÖÖ×ÙÈÓÆ×
ÉÈ×ÌÉ ÈÍ Ê×ÛÙÔ ÉÈÛÈ×ÛØÍÌÈ×Ø
ÛÎØ
ÕÍÛÐÉ Å× ÅÓÐÐ ÛÈ Ð×ÛÉÈ Ú× Ô×ÛØ×Ø ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÊÓÕÔÈ
ØÓÊ×ÙÈÓÍÎ
û ÚÊÍÛØÐà ÛÙÙ×ÌÈ×Ø ÕÇÓØÓÎÕ ÌÊÓÎÙÓÌÐ× ÖÍÊ ÕÊ××ÎÔÍÇÉ× ÕÛÉ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ ÓÉ ÈÔÛÈ ×ÛÙÔ É×ÙÈÍÊ ÉÔÍÇÐØ
ÌÐÛÎ ÈÍ ÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈ× ÓÈÉ ÍÅÎ ÉÔÛÊ× ÍÖ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ öÍÐÐÍÅÓÎÕ ÈÔÓÉ ÌÊÓÎÙÓÌÐ× ÈÔ×
ÈÊÛÎÉÌÍÊÈÛÈÓÍÎ É×ÙÈÍÊ ÓÈÉ×ÐÖ ÉÔÍÇÐØ ÈÛÊÕ×È ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ ÏÛÈÙÔÓÎÕ ÈÔ× ÉÈÛÈ×ÛØÍÌÈ×Ø
Ì×ÊÙ×ÎÈÛÕ×É
èÔ× ÈÊÛÎÉÌÍÊÈÛÈÓÍÎ É×ÙÈÍÊ Ô×ÛÆÓÐà ØÍÏÓÎÛÈ×Ø Úà ÌÊÓÆÛÈ× ÏÍÈÍÊ Æ×ÔÓÙÐ×É Ê×ÌÊ×É×ÎÈÉ ÛÚÍÇÈ ÔÛÐÖ ÍÖ
ÈÔ× ÈÍÈÛÐ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ ÓÎ ÷ÇÕ×Î×
ûÐÐ ÙÊ×ØÓÚÐ× ÛÎÛÐÃÉ×É ÉÇÕÕ×ÉÈ ÈÔÛÈ ÌÊ×ØÓÙÈÛÚÐ× ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ ÈÔÊÍÇÕÔ ÈÔ× ÙÍÏÚÓÎÛÈÓÍÎ ÍÖ
ÓÎÎÍÆÛÈÓÍÎÉ ÓÎ Æ×ÔÓÙÐ× È×ÙÔÎÍÐÍÕÓ×É ÚÓÍÖÇ×ÐÉ ÛÎØ ÍÈÔ×Ê ×Î×ÊÕà ÉÍÇÊÙ× ÛÎØ ØÓÉÈÊÓÚÇÈÓÍÎÉ
Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈÉ ÅÓÐÐ ÙÍÎÈÊÓÚÇÈ× ÉÇÚÉÈÛÎÈÓÛÐÐà ÚÇÈ ÎÍÈ Î×ÛÊÐà ×ÎÍÇÕÔ ÈÍ Ê×ÛÙÔ ÈÔ× ÛØÍÌÈ×Ø ÕÍÛÐÉ
èÔ×Ê× ÓÉ Û Æ×Êà ÉÈÊÍÎÕ ÓÎÈ×ÊÛÙÈÓÍÎ ÍÖ ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× ØÓÉÈÊÓÚÇÈÓÍÎ ÅÓÈÔ æïè èÔ× ÐÛÊÕ×ÉÈ ÉÓÎÕÐ× ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ×
ÙÍÏÌÍÎ×ÎÈ ÍÖ æïè ÅÓÈÔ Ê×ÕÛÊØ ÈÍ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÐÛÎØ ÇÉ× ÓÉ ÈÔ× ØÓÉÈÛÎÙ× Ú×ÈÅ××Î ×ÛÙÔ ØÅ×ÐÐÓÎÕ
ÛÎØ ÈÔ× Ï×ÈÊÍÌÍÐÓÈÛÎ Ù×ÎÈ×Ê ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ Ø×ÎÉÓÈà ÛÉ ÉÇÙÔ ÛÎØ ÅÛÐÑÛÚÐ× ÛÙÙ×ÉÉ
Ö××È ÈÍ ÖÇÐÐ
É×ÊÆÓÙ× lÄ×Ø ÈÊÛÎÉÓÈ ÛÊ× ÓÏÌÍÊÈÛÎÈ É×ÙÍÎØÛÊà ÙÍÏÌÍÎ×ÎÈÉ
ðùíõ ÈÊÛÖlÙ ÉÈÇØÓ×É ÔÛÆ× ÙÍÎlÊÏ×Ø ÈÔ× Õ×ÍÕÊÛÌÔÓÙ ÌÛÈÈ×ÊÎ ÍÖ æïè ÓÎ È×ÊÏÉ ÍÊ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ
ÐÍÙÛÈÓÍÎÉ èÔ× æïè Ì×Ê ÙÛÌÓÈÛ ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÙÓÈà Ù×ÎÈ×Ê ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÓÉ Ð×ÉÉ ÈÔ×Î ÔÛÐÖ ÈÔ× Ï×ÈÊÍ ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ×
èÔ×Ê× ÓÉ ÛÎ ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ ÛÚÍÇÈ ÏÓØÅÛà Ú×ÈÅ××Î ÈÔ× ÙÓÈà Ù×ÎÈ×Ê ÛÎØ ÈÔ× ÇÊÚÛÎ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ
ÚÍÇÎØÛÊà íÇÈ ÛÈ ÈÔ× ÇÊÚÛÎ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÚÍÇÎØÛÊà æïè ÆÛÊÓ×É ÖÊÍÏ
ÈÍ
ÍÊ ÏÍÊ× ÍÖ ÈÔ×
Ï×ÈÊÍ ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ×
ìÛÕ× ÍÖ
ÅÅÅöÊÓ×ÎØÉÍÖ÷ÇÕ×Î×ÍÊÕ
ïÍÊ× ÉÌ×ÙÓlÙÛÐÐà Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÓÎlÐÐ ÛÎØ ÉÇÚØÓÆÓÉÓÍÎÉ ÛÎØ ÍÈÔ×Ê ×ØÕ× Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÓÎ ÌÛÊÈÓÙÇÐÛÊ
ÅÔÓÙÔ ÛÊ× ÐÍÙÛÈ×Ø íçèéóø÷ ÈÔ× ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ ÛÎØ ÖÛÊÈÔ×Ê ÈÔÛÎ
t ÖÊÍÏ ÖÇÐÐÉ×ÊÆÓÙ×
lÄ×Ø ÈÊÛÎÉÓÈ ÅÓÐÐ È×ÎØ ÈÍ óîùê÷ûé÷ ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè Ì×Ê ÙÛÌÓÈÛ
ûÎØ ÓÎ ÙÍÎÈÊÛÉÈ ÍÈÔ×Ê Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÉÇÙÔ ÛÉ ÏÇÐÈÓÉÈÍÊà Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐ ÏÓÄ×Ø ÇÉ×
ÅÔÓÙÔ ÓÉ ÐÍÙÛÈ×Ø óîéóø÷ ÈÔ× ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ ÅÓÐÐ È×ÎØ ÈÍ ø÷ùê÷ûé÷ ÈÔ× ÍÆ×ÊÛÐÐ ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ×
æïè Ì×Ê ÙÛÌÓÈÛ
ê×ØÓÊ×ÙÈÓÎÕ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÛÅÛà ÖÊÍÏ ÓÎlÐÐ ÛÎØ ÓÎÈÍ Ø×ÎÉ× ÏÇÐÈÓÉÈÍÊà ÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐ
Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÏÓÄ×Ø ÓÎ ÙÍÊ× ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÌÊ×É×ÎÈÉ Û ÔÇÕ× ÛÎØ ÆÓÈÛÐ ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈà ÈÍ Ê×ØÇÙ× Ì×ÊÙÛÌÓÈÛ æïè
×Æ×Î ÛÉ ÍÇÊ Ï×ÈÊÍÌÍÐÓÈÛÎ ÛÊ×Û ÙÍÎÈÓÎÇ×É ÈÍ ÕÊÍÅ ÓÎ ÌÍÌÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ ûÉ ÉÓÎÙ× ÔÛÉ Ú××Î ÅÓØ×ÐÃ
ÍÚÉ×ÊÆ×Ø Úà ÙÐÓÏÛÈ× ×ÄÌ×ÊÈÉ Å× Î××Ø ÈÍ ØÍ ÷æ÷êãèôóîõ ÈÔÛÈ Å× Ö×ÛÉÓÚÐà ÙÛÎ ÈÍ ÐÍÅ×Ê ÍÇÊ
×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Å× Î××Ø ÈÍ ÈÛÑ× ÛØÆÛÎÈÛÕ× ÍÖ ÈÔÓÉ ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃ
ùÛÐÙÇÐÛÈÓÍÎÉ ÉÔÍÅ ÈÔÛÈ æïè Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎ ÈÔÊÍÇÕÔ ØÓÊ×ÙÈÓÎÕ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÈÍ ÅÓÈÔÓÎ ÈÔ× ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè
ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ ÅÓÐÐ Ú× ×ÉÉ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÓÎ Ê×ÛÐÓÉÈÓÙ ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÈÍ Ï××È ÈÔ× ÉÈÛÈ×ÛØÍÌÈ×Ø ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎÉ
ÕÍÛÐÉ
éÍÏ× ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÓ×É ÖÍÊ ÐÛÊÕ× ÛÎØ ÉÏÛÐÐ ÉÇÚØÓÆÓÉÓÍÎÉ ÛÎØ ÙÍÏÌÛÈÓÚÐ× Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÓÎlÐÐ ÉÈÓÐÐ
Ê×ÏÛÓÎ ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÐÛÊÕ× ÛÊ×Û ÅÓÈÔÓÎ ÈÔ× ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ åÓÈÔ ÖÇÐÐ ÛÎØ ÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈ× Ï×ÛÉÇÊ×É
ÈÍ ÉÛÖ×ÕÇÛÊØ ×ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕ Î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÉ ÈÔ×É× ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÓ×É ÙÛÎ Ú× Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌ×Ø ÅÔÓÐ× ÛÙÈÇÛÐÐÃ
ÓÏÌÊÍÆÓÎÕ ÈÔ× ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈÃtÉ ÙÛÊÚÍÎ ÖÍÍÈÌÊÓÎÈ úÇÈ ÈÔ×à ÛÊ× ÍÎÐà ÐÓÑ×Ðà ÈÍ ÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈ× Û ÉÏÛÐÐ
ÖÊÛÙÈÓÍÎ ÍÖ ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈ×Ø Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ
èÔ× Ê×ÛÐ ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈà ÛÊÊÓÉ×É ÅÓÈÔ ÈÔ× ÐÛÊÕ× ÖÊÛÙÈÓÍÎ ÍÖ ÐÛÎØ ÓÎÉÓØ× ÈÔ× ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ
ÅÔÓÙÔ ÓÉ ÂÍÎ×Ø ÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐ ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ ÓÎlÐÐ Ê×ÌÊ×É×ÎÈÉ Û Ê×ÐÛÈÓÆ×Ðà ÉÏÛÐÐ ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈà ÖÍÊ
ÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈÓÎÕ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÅÔÓÐ× Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐ ÏÓÄ×Ø ÇÉ× ÓÎ ×ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕ ÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐÐÃÂÍÎ×Ø
ÛÊ×ÛÉ Ê×ÌÊ×É×ÎÈÉ Û Ê×ÐÛÈÓÆ×Ðà ÐÛÊÕ× ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÃ
óÎÖÍÊÏÛÈÓÍÎ ÍÎ Û ÎÛÈÓÍÎÛÐ ÉÙÛÐ× ÉÇÕÕ×ÉÈÉ ÈÔÛÈ ÔÓÕÔËÇÛÐÓÈà ÏÇÐÈÓÖÛÏÓÐà ÔÍÇÉÓÎÕ ÓÉ ÇÎØ×Ê
ÉÇÌÌÐÓ×Ø Ê×ÐÛÈÓÆ× ÈÍ Ø×ÏÍÕÊÛÌÔÓÙ Ø×ÏÛÎØ ÈÊ×ÎØÉ ÅÔÓÐ× Ø×ÈÛÙÔ×Ø ÉÓÎÕÐ× ÖÛÏÓÐà ÔÍÇÉÓÎÕ ÓÉ
ÍÆ×ÊÉÇÌÌÐÓ×Ø Ê×ÐÛÈÓÆ× ÈÍ ÈÔ× ÛÙÈÇÛÐ ÏÛÊÑ×È Ø×ÏÛÎØ èÔÓÉ ÎÛÈÓÍÎÛÐ Ì×ÊÉÌ×ÙÈÓÆ× ÍÎ ÈÔ× Ê×ÐÛÈÓÆ×
Î××Ø ÖÍÊ ÆÛÊÓÍÇÉ ÔÍÇÉÓÎÕ ÈÃÌ×É ÉÔÍÇÐØ Ú× ÙÍÎlÊÏ×Ø ÖÍÊ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÈÔÊÍÇÕÔ ÈÔ× ÷ùðû ÌÊÍÙ×ÉÉ
ÛÐÍÎÕ ÅÓÈÔ ÈÔ× ÆÛÊÓÍÇÉ ÛÊ×ÛÉ ÛÎØ Ì×ÊÙ×ÎÈÛÕ×É ÍÖ ÐÛÎØ
ÐÍÈ ÈÃÌ×É ÛÎØ ÂÍÎÓÎÕ ÓÎÉÓØ× ÛÎØ ÍÇÈÉÓØ×
ÈÔ× ÛÌÌÊÍÄÓÏÛÈ× ûæïèù
ìÍÉÓÈÓÆ× ê×ÙÍÏÏ×ÎØÛÈÓÍÎÉ
óÎÉÈ×ÛØ ÍÖ ÅÓØ×ÎÓÎÕ ÊÇÊÛÐ å×ÉÈ ÈÔ ÈÍ ÉÇÌÌÍÊÈ ÉÌÊÛÅÐ ÈÍ ÈÔ× ×ØÕ× ÍÖ ÈÔ× çõú ÛÎØ ×Æ×ÎÈÇÛÐÐÃ
Ú×ÃÍÎØ Å× ÉÔÍÇÐØ Ú× ÈÛÑÓÎÕ ÌÍÉÓÈÓÆ× ÉÈ×ÌÉ ÈÍ ÕÊÍÅ ÛÙÙÍÊØÓÎÕ ÈÍ ×ÉÈÛÚÐÓÉÔ×Ø ÉÈÛÈ× ÛÎØ ÐÍÙÛÐ
ÕÍÛÐÉ ÛÎØ ÌÍÐÓÙÓ×É ÛÉ ÇÎØ×ÊÉÈÍÍØ ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÙÇÊÊ×ÎÈ ÐÓÕÔÈ ÍÖ ÑÎÍÅÐ×ØÕ× Ê×ÕÛÊØÓÎÕ ÙÐÓÏÛÈ× ÙÔÛÎÕ×
û èÍ ÛÙÙÍÏÏÍØÛÈ× ÍÎÕÍÓÎÕ ÌÍÌÇÐÛÈÓÍÎ ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÓÎ ÷ÇÕ×Î× ÛÎØ ÈÍ ÖÇÐlÐÐ ÈÔ× Ø×ÉÓÊ× ÖÍÊ
Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÍÌÌÍÊÈÇÎÓÈÓ×É Å× ÉÔÍÇÐØ ÖÍÙÇÉ ÍÎ Ê×ÛÐÓÂÓÎÕ ÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈ× ÛÎØ ÓÎÈ×ÎÉÓÆ×
Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐ ÏÓÄ×ØÇÉ× Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÛÎØ Ê×Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÓÎ ×ÄÓÉÈÓÎÕ ÙÍÏÏ×ÊÙÓÛÐÐÃ
ÂÍÎ×Ø ÙÍÊ× ÛÊ×ÛÉ
ìÛÕ× ÍÖ
ÅÅÅöÊÓ×ÎØÉÍÖ÷ÇÕ×Î×ÍÊÕ
ú å× ÉÔÍÇÐØ ÛÐÉÍ ÌÊÍÆÓØ× ÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈ× ÓÎlÐÐ ÌÊÍÈ×ÙÈÓÍÎ Ï×ÛÉÇÊ×É ÖÍÊ ×ÉÈÛÚÐÓÉÔ×Ø ÈÊÛØÓÈÓÍÎÛÐ
Î×ÓÕÔÚÍÊÔÍÍØÉ ÛÎØ ÖÍÊ Ê×ÏÛÓÎÓÎÕ ÎÛÈÇÊÛÐ Ê×ÉÍÇÊÙ×É ÛÉ ÈÔ×É× ÓÊÊ×ÌÐÛÙ×ÛÚÐ× ÙÍÏÏÇÎÓÈà ÛÉÉ×ÈÉ
ÏÇÉÈ Ú× ÌÊÍÈ×ÙÈ×Ø ÖÊÍÏ ÈÔ× ÓÎÙÊ×ÛÉÓÎÕ ÊÓÉÑ ÍÖ ÖÇÊÈÔ×Ê ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ ÛÉ ÙÍÊ× Ø×ÎÉÓÈà ÓÎÙÊ×ÛÉ×É
ìÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÛÙÈÓÍÎÉ ÉÔÍÇÐØ Ú× ÈÛÑ×Î ÈÍ ÏÓÎÓÏÓÂ× ÛÎØ ÌÊ×Æ×ÎÈ ÛØØÓÈÓÍÎÛÐ Ø×ÎÉÓlÙÛÈÓÍÎ ÛÎØ
Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÍÇÈÉÓØ× ÈÔ× ÛÆ×ÊÛÕ× æïè ÙÍÎÈÍÇÊ ÉÇÙÔ ÛÉ Û ÌÊÍÔÓÚÓÈÓÍÎ ÍÎ ÖÇÊÈÔ×Ê ÊÍÛØÚÇÓÐØÓÎÕ
ÍÊ ÅÓØ×ÎÓÎÕ ÛÎØ Û ÌÊÍÔÓÚÓÈÓÍÎ ÍÎ ÛØØÓÈÓÍÎÛÐ ÉÇÚØÓÆÓÉÓÍÎÉ ÓÎ ÈÔÛÈ ÇÊÚÛÎ ÖÊÓÎÕ× ÛÊ×Û éÇÙÔ
ÛÌÌÊÍÌÊÓÛÈ× ÌÐÛÎÎÓÎÕ ÛÙÈÓÍÎÉ ÏÛà ÓÎÙÐÇØ× ÐÓÏÓÈÓÎÕ Ê×ÉÓØ×ÎÈÓÛÐ Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÍÇÈÉÓØ× ÈÔ×
ÛÌÌÊÍÄÓÏÛÈ× ûæïèù ÈÍ ê ×ÄÙ×ÌÈ ÖÍÊ ÖÇÐÐÉ×ÊÆÓÙ× ÈÊÛÎÉÓÈ ×ÄÙ×ÌÈÓÍÎ ÛÊ×ÛÉ
ÛÆÍÓØÓÎÕ ÖÇÊÈÔ×Ê
ÌÛÊÈÓÈÓÍÎÉ ÛÎØ ÉÇÚØÓÆÓÉÓÍÎÉ ÓÎ ÈÔ× ÔÓÕÔ æïè ÛÊ×Û ÍÇÈÉÓØ× ÍÖ ÖÇÐÐÉ×ÊÆÓÙ× ÈÊÛÎÉÓÈ ×ÄÙ×ÌÈÓÍÎ ÛÊ×ÛÉ
ÛÎØ Ê×ÈÓÊÓÎÕ ÎÍØÛÐ Ø×Æ×ÐÍÌÏ×ÎÈ ÌÐÛÎÉ ÐÍÙÛÈ×Ø ÍÇÈÉÓØ× ÈÔ× ÛÌÌÊÍÄÓÏÛÈ× ûæïèù ÅÔ×Ê× ÉÏÛÊÈ
ÕÊÍÅÈÔ ÅÍÇÐØ Ú× ÛÎÃÈÔÓÎÕ ÚÇÈ
û ÅÓØ×ÐÃÊ×ÙÍÕÎÓÂ×Ø Ñ×à ÐÓÈÏÇÉ È×ÉÈ ÖÍÊ ÍÖ ÌÊÍÌÍÉ×Ø ÊÍÛØ ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈÉ ÈÍØÛà ÏÇÉÈ Ú× ÎÍ Î×Å
ÐÛÎ×ÏÓÐ×É ÍÖ ÊÍÛØ óÎ ÐÓÕÔÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ× ÖÛÙÈÚÛÉ×Ø ÌÊ×ÉÇÏÌÈÓÍÎ ÈÔÛÈ Î×Å ÊÍÛØÉ ÛÊ× Ø×ÏÍÎÉÈÊÛÚÐà ÛÎØ
ÓÎ Õ×Î×ÊÛÐ ÙÐÓÏÛÈ×ÚÇÉÈ×ÊÉ ÖÍÊ ÛÎà Î×Å ÐÛÎ×ÏÓÐ×É ÍÖ ÊÍÛØ ÈÍ Ú× ÛÌÌÊÍÆ×Ø ÖÍÊ ÖÇÎØÓÎÕ ÛÎØ
ÙÍÎÉÈÊÇÙÈÓÍÎ ÈÔ× ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈÉ ÏÇÉÈ ÌÛÉÉ ÈÔ× Æ×Êà ÔÓÕÔ×ÉÈ Ð×Æ×ÐÉ ÍÖ ÉÙÊÇÈÓÎà ÛÎÛÐÃÉÓÉ ÛÎØ Ê×ÆÓ×Å
èÔÓÉ ÌÊÍÒ×ÙÈ ÔÛÉ ÎÍÈ
å× ÙÛÎÎÍÈ ÛÖÖÍÊØ ÈÍ ÏÛÓÎÈÛÓÎ ÈÔ× ÊÍÛØÉ Å×tÆ× ÛÐÊ×ÛØà ÚÇÓÐÈ ÎÍÊ ÙÛÎ Å× ÛÖÖÍÊØ ÈÔ× ÓÏÌÛÙÈÉ ÍÖ ÈÔ×
ÙÇÊÊ×ÎÈ ÈÊÛÖlÙ ÇÌÍÎ ÈÔ×Ï ôÍÅ ÙÛÎ Å× ÌÍÉÉÓÚÐà ÛÖÖÍÊØ ÈÍ ÔÛÎÕ ÛÎà ÖÇÊÈÔ×Ê ÛÐÚÛÈÊÍÉÉ×É ÛÊÍÇÎØ
ÍÇÊ ×ÙÍÎÍÏÓÙ Î×ÙÑÉý
ê×ÉÌ×ÙÈÖÇÐÐÃ
ñ×ÆÓÎ ïÛÈÈÔ×ÅÉ
ìÊ×ÉÓØ×ÎÈ
öÊÓ×ÎØÉ ÍÖ ÷ÇÕ×Î×
ÏÛÈÈÔ×ÅÉüÛÊÈÓlÙ×ÙÍÏ
ìí úÍÄ ÷ÇÕ×Î× íê
ÆÍÄ
ÖÛÄ
ê×Ö×Ê×ÎÙ×É
õÊÍÅÓÎÕ ùÍÍÐ×Ê çÊÚÛÎ ðÛÎØ óÎÉÈÓÈÇÈ×
éÈÛÈ× ÍÖ íÊ×ÕÍÎ ×ÏÓÉÉÓÍÎÉ Ê×ØÇÙÈÓÍÎ Ð×ÕÓÉÐÛÈÓÍÎ
ê×ÌÍÊÈ ÍÖ ÈÔ× õÍÆ×ÊÎÍÊtÉ ùÐÓÏÛÈ× ùÔÛÎÕ× èÛÉÑ öÍÊÙ×
ìÛÕ× ÍÖ
ÅÅÅöÊÓ×ÎØÉÍÖ÷ÇÕ×Î×ÍÊÕ
߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ Û
S U M M A R Y M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
th
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue
May 5, 2009
5 p.m.
PRESENT: Philip Carroll, Chair; Heidi Bierle, Vice Chair; John Lawless, Randy Hledik, Ann
Kneeland, members; Kurt Yeiter, Rob Inerfeld, City staff; Kathy Brotherton, CAO.
ABSENT: Richard Duncan, Jeffrey Mills, commissioners.
PUBLIC HEARING ON TRANSPLAN AND METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
TransPlan Project List Update (MA 09-2): The proposed amendments are text amendments to the
Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) to move two ODOT projects
from the Future list to the Financially Constrained list to reflect higher priority status for future
th
funding of these two projects. The two projects are: West 11 Avenue from Greenhill Road to
Terry Street, and Beltline Highway. Concurrent amendments to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (the “Metro Plan”) are requested to maintain consistency between
TransPlan and the Metro Plan
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 1
M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
th
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue
May 5, 2009
5 p.m.
PRESENT: Philip Carroll, Chair; Heidi Bierle, Vice Chair; John Lawless, Randy Hledik, Ann
Kneeland, members; Kurt Yeiter, Rob Inerfeld, City staff; Kathy Brotherton, CAO.
ABSENT: Richard Duncan, Jeffrey Mills, commissioners.
Mr. Carroll convened the Eugene Planning Commission.
PUBLIC HEARING ON TRANSPLAN AND METRO PLAN AMENDMENT
TransPlan Project List Update (MA 09-2): The proposed amendments are text amendments to the
Eugene-Springfield Regional Transportation System Plan (TransPlan) to move two ODOT projects
from the Future list to the Financially Constrained list to reflect higher priority status for future
th
funding of these two projects. The two projects are: West 11 Avenue from Greenhill Road to
Terry Street, and Beltline Highway. Concurrent amendments to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (the “Metro Plan”) are requested to maintain consistency between
TransPlan and the Metro Plan
Mr. Carroll called the meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission to order.
Mr. Carroll asked for conflicts of interest, ex parte contacts, or declarations of bias. There were none
declared.
Mr. Carroll announced the purpose of the hearing, which was to hear testimony on the proposed
amendments to the TransPlan project list.
Mr. Yeiter introduced the topic, clarifying that the amendments before the commission were pertinent to
Eugene only and did not require the participation of Springfield and Lane County. The amendments
would take two projects from the list of unfunded projects and move them to the financially constrained
list of projects, making them more likely to receive funding within 20 years. The Metropolitan Policy
Committee (MPC) had revised the federally required plan to accommodate the two projects. There was
now an expectation that studies would be funded for the two projects.
Mr. Yeiter recalled that the commission requested additional information at the April 7 joint meeting with
the Springfield and Lane County commissions that had been provided via e-mail. He called the
commission’s attention to a letter from William Hatton of the Bureau of Land Management’s Eugene
th
District Office, which spoke to the environmental constraints related to the wetlands adjacent to West 11
Avenue.
Mr. Inerfeld said the changes before the commission were consistent with the work plan approved by the
Land Conservation and Development Commission. The shift to the financially constrained list meant the
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 1
City was making those projects a priority over the life of the plan. He reported that in 2006, the City
Council had gone on record stating the Beltline project was its first priority for funding in north and west
th
Eugene, and West 11 Avenue was the second priority for funding in the same area. The City was
actively moving both projects along. The Oregon Department of Transportation was currently doing a
facility planning study for Beltline and had $2.5 million scheduled to complete the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) work required. Mr. Inerfeld said approval of the amendments were
consistent with the Council’s direction.
Mr. Yeiter asked the commission to make a recommendation on the matter to the council, and noted the
draft motion provided by staff.
Mr. Carroll opened the public hearing.
Kevin Matthews
, President of the Friends of Eugene (FOE), PO Box 1588, Eugene, submitted a five-
page written statement on behalf of FOE into the record.
Mr. Matthews expressed concern about the project because it would result in a four-lane road that would
eventually run into a two-lane road. He suggested that there might be critical habitat in the project
footprint. He questioned the accuracy of the maps used by the Lane Council of Governments in
developing the project.
Mr. Matthews did not believe that the City should be adding new lane miles of roadway to the “outer
parts of the urban growth boundary” without a strong assurance of good results and minimized impacts.
He asserted that “all kinds of formal planning references show that new lane miles of roadway induce
traffic.” Mr. Matthews said that people who live on the urban fringe drive one and one-half to twice the
average of those living in the city center. He asserted that to reduce carbon emissions to the degree
necessary in 40 years, the City must reduce emissions between five and ten percent each year. That did
not take into account population increases. Mr. Matthews acknowledged that there were likely to be
technological advances that reduced emissions, but asserted that “nobody who has studied this in detail”
believed the reductions needed could be achieved by advances in vehicle technology. He asked the
commission to let the Beltline project move forward but to take this “climate-busting, sprawl project” that
he did not think justified off the list.
There being no further testimony, Mr. Carroll requested a staff response.
Mr. Inerfeld reminded the commission of the lengthy public process that a project must go through to get
included in TransPlan and to be constructed. He said that there was a considerable amount of private land
in the area was going to be developed by somebody at some time and the City needed to have a facility in
th
place to respond to that development. Currently, West 11 Avenue in that area lacked both sidewalks and
bicycle facilities. If people wished to access development in the area without driving, they could not do
so. Mr. Inerfeld said the Facility Planning Study would include opportunities for public engagement
where the issues mentioned by Mr. Matthews could be raised. He pointed out that the project would also
have to go through the NEPA process, which also included opportunities for public input and was
intended to address the environmental issues raised by Mr. Matthews.
Mr. Yeiter indicated the commission could postpone action if it wished to further consider the issues
raised in testimony.
Mr. Carroll asked for direction regarding what sources the commission could consult in reaching its
decision. Mr. Yeiter suggested the commission could leave the record open to gather additional
information. Ms. Brotherton said that the commission could consult TransPlan, the Metro Plan, and the
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 2
City Code. If the commission wished to know what analysis the MPC employed to move the project, she
recommended the commission leave the record open for sufficient time to allow for the submittal of that
information.
Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the work plan agreed to by LCDC meant Eugene must bring TransPlan into
conformity with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), but that did not oblige the council to move the
projects to the constrained list. Mr. Yeiter concurred.
th
Mr. Hledik asked if the West 11 Avenue project was a five-lane project. Mr. Inerfeld said that the
description of the project was not “set in stone” but was illustrative of the project if built to Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) standards. Mr. Hledik determined from Mr. Inerfeld that moving
the project to the financially constrained list did not bind the City to project construction.
Ms. Brotherton spoke to the question of whether a project on a futures list could be built before a project
on the financially constrained list. She said the answer was yes, and TransPlan actually spoke to the
question by stating that such projects could be implemented earlier if funding was identified. She noted
that the State lacked a requirement for a futures and financially constrained list, and the reason for the
separate lists in TransPlan was because the plan used to also serve as the federal plan.
th
Responding to a question from Mr. Yeiter, Mr. Inerfeld was unsure if study funds for the West 11
Avenue project would be jeopardized by failure to include it on the financially constrained list.
Mr. Hledik recalled hearing of a legislative proposal for a Highway 126 study. Mr. Inerfeld said that
th
senators Prozanski and Holvey sponsored a bill to do a study of west 11 Avenue from Greenhill Road to
Veneta, and Lane County requested federal funding for the same segment from Representative Peter
DeFazio through the federal transportation reauthorization process. That did not presuppose a road
design.
Responding to a question from Ms. Bierle about the Council’s direction, Mr. Inerfeld said that after the
West Eugene Parkway was voted down by the Council, the Council gave staff direction to pursue the
th
West 11 Avenue project as one of the City’s top three transportation priority projects in north and west
Eugene. Ms. Brotherton said more recently, the Council considered the transportation work plan and
initiated amendments to TransPlan to remove the West Eugene Parkway project and add the two projects
in question.
Ms. Kneeland asked why the segment in question was favored by the Council. Mr. Inerfeld believed it
was because the council wanted to be able to serve the transportation demand that would have otherwise
be borne by the West Eugene Parkway. The segment of roadway in question was one of only two
sections of ODOT roadways in Eugene not constructed to urban standards; the other section was Highway
99 from Roosevelt to Garfield.
Ms. Bierle asked if the ODOT facilities planning study would address issues such as public transit and
incorporation of the recommendations of the West Eugene Collaborative (WEC). Mr. Inerfeld did not
th
think that any of the WEC recommendations pertained to this section of West 11 Avenue, but said
ODOT would consider such things. He added that the City participated in such studies and Lane Transit
District would also be solicited for input. He added that no funding had yet been identified for a facilities
th
study of West 11 Avenue.
Mr. Inerfeld said he would provide the commission with copies of the minutes reflecting the Council’s
discussions. Mr. Lawless inquired as to the time of those discussions. Mr. Inerfeld said they occurred in
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 3
fall 2006. Mr. Lawless characterized that as “a while back” and said he would be interested in the context
of that conversation before the commission deliberated.
th
Mr. Hledik suggested the proposed West 11 Avenue project could open the door to funding for the
technical analysis related to the recommendations of the WEC. Mr. Inerfeld, a member of the WEC,
reiterated that the WEC’s recommendations did not encompass the segment of the roadway in question.
The WEC had endorsed the Highway 126 study proposed by Senator Prozanski and Representative
Holvey. Mr. Hledik suggested the project would “complete that length” of the roadway not addressed by
the Highway 126 study and WEC recommendations.
At the request of Mr. Carroll, Mr. Inerfeld identified the location of Terry Street on a map.
Mr. Lawless asked for information about the rationale for the four-lane road improvement that occurred
th
on West 11 Avenue between Terry and Danebo streets.
Mr. Matthews said the WEC’s area of focus extended to Greenhill, but he asserted its “area of interest”
extended beyond Veneta. The WEC did not make specific recommendations about the section of West
th
11 Avenue in question. The WEC had made general recommendations about concentrating density
inside of Beltline. He believed that the project, while “in the works” while the WEC deliberated, was not
necessarily consistent with the vision of the WEC. He maintained that the WEC “addressed it by
absence” rather than explicitly. The WEC called for road improvements to be made within existing
rights-of-way. He thought the WEC would like it if the commission considered the WEC vision and how
the project fit into the WEC’s priorities.
Mr. Inerfeld observed that the WEC tended to avoid topics on which members did not reach consensus.
th
Mr. Hledik asked if the City had considered how widening West 11 Avenue affected its vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) reduction goal. Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the City did not have a VMT reduction goal.
With the concurrence of the State, Eugene-Springfield had adopted alternative performance measures in
TransPlan because it was determined it could not meet a VMT reduction target. He added that the City
would be updating TransPlan soon and would be bound by what rules were in place at the time in regard
to VMT reductions. He doubted any facilities planning work would occur on the road segment in
question before that update was completed.
Mr. Hledik asked if the road configuration would be evaluated against those new VMT standards. Ms.
Brotherton said the City would have to meet any requirements in place. He said that individual projects
were not considered in terms of VMT reduction. Ms. Brotherton said that VMT reduction was considered
on a regional basis, so one road project did not put the region out of compliance.
Mr. Hledik asked how the incremental impact of projects was measured. Ms. Brotherton said the City
had benchmarks against which to evaluate progress. She said the City was in good shape overall in
regard to the benchmarks.
Mr. Hledik posited that the City could rezone all of the periphery to very low-density zoning and rezone
the heart of the community to high-density residential and as long as the region met the performance
standards on a regional basis, that was acceptable. Ms. Brotherton said yes, although there might be other
policies that precluded that.
Ms. Kneeland asked if a VMT reduction was an alternative performance measurement that the City must
meet. Staff indicated it would clarify that issue.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 4
Mr. Lawless asked if the alternative performance measures excluded the use of VMT as a measurement.
Ms. Brotherton did not think so.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Inerfeld clarified that the alternative performance
measures were not applied to individual projects; they were applied at the regional level because they
addressed the number of acres rezoned for nodal development and the miles of priority bikeways that had
been built, and those were not the type of metrics that could be easily applied to an individual project.
Mr. Carroll closed the public hearing and kept the public record open for 21 days to allow for the
submittal of additional information from staff.
Ms. Kneeland requested information about other relevant City policies that addressed VMT.
Mr. Carroll requested information about whether projects were added to the plan for political reason by
the elected officials at the MPC or if there was technical analysis supporting the inclusion of the projects.
Mr. Inerfeld did not believe there was any coordination among MPC members to add the projects.
Mr. Carroll adjourned the hearing at 6:03 p.m.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission May 5, 2009 Page 5
ATTACHMENT F
Public Works
Engineering
M
City of Eugene
EMORANDUM
858 Pearl Street
Eugene, Oregon 97401
(541) 682-5291
(541) 682-5032 FAX
Date: October 16, 2009
To: Planning Commission
From: Rob Inerfeld, Transportation Planning Manager
Subject: Follow up on May 5 Public Hearing
At the May 5, 2009 public hearing regarding moving two ODOT projects from the Future to the
Financially Constrained list in TransPlan, a number of questions came up for which staff said we
would follow up in a subsequent memo. Answers to the questions are provided below.
1.City Council minutes and other materials regarding the Council’s desire to move the West
th
11 project to the Financially Constrained list (or to higher priority status).
The City Council held work sessions on September 25, 2006 and October 9, 2006 to discuss
transportation priorities in north and west Eugene. At the second work session, the Council
passed motions regarding transportation project priorities to identify the Beltline Corridor from
River Road to Coburg Road as the City’s top priority for funding in the Statewide Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP), West 11th Avenue from Terry Street to Greenhill Road as its
second priority, and a study of the Beltline Corridor from Roosevelt Boulevard to West 11th
Avenue as a third priority for funding in the STIP.
On August 13, 2008, the City Council initiated TransPlan and Metro Plan amendments to move
two projects from the Future to Financially Constrained projects list in TransPlan: W. 11th
Avenue from Greenhill Road to Terry Street, and Beltline Highway from River Road to Delta
Highway. Specifically, the City Council passed the following motion:
I move to initiate a TransPlan amendment to delete the West Eugene Parkway from the
project list and plan as part of the short-term amendments and to add the two ODOT facility
projects into the “Constrained” project list, which are the West 11th Avenue from Terry to
Greenhill and the Beltline Highway from River Road to Delta Highway.
The minutes of these three Council work sessions are provided as attachments.
2.Similarly, minutes and background materials supporting MPC’s decision to move the West
th
11 project to the Financially Constrained list in the RTP.
1
At the March 8, 2007 Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, a draft proposed Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) project list for ODOT projects was presented for discussion. This
document included the proposal to move the West 11th Avenue project from the Illustrative
project list to the Financially Constrained project list. The staff presentation at the MPC meeting
indicated that removing the West Eugene Parkway freed up $150 million on the financially
constrained list over the 20-year horizon of the RTP. The minutes from the March 8 meeting do
not indicate that there was any discussion about the West 11th Avenue project. A revised
version of the ODOT project list was presented at the April 12, 2007 MPC meeting and the
minutes from that meeting also do not indicate any discussion about the West 11th project.
Minutes from subsequent meetings through adoption of the 2031 RTP update on November 8,
2007 do not indicate any discussion about the West 11th project. The minutes for the MPC
meetings as well as the RTP project lists can be found at this website:
http://docs.lcog.org/meetings/mpc.html.
th
3.Explanation of the reasoning behind widening West 11 Avenue to, at least, Terry Street.
th
Why are west 11 Avenue improvements done incrementally?
The section of West 11th Avenue from Beltline to Willow Creek/Danebo was reconstructed
around 1998. The city managed this project for ODOT and it was constructed with a
combination of ODOT and federal funds. This capacity was increased on this section of West
11th to serve Hynix.
The section of West 11th Avenue from Willow Creek/Danebo to Terry was reconstructed around
2000. The city managed this project for ODOT and it was constructed with a combination of
ODOT funds and IOF lottery funds for economic development and job creation purposes. This
capacity was increased on this section of West 11th to develop access to the Greenhill
Technology Park.
Development has been slow west of Terry Street because sanitary sewer services have not yet
been extended to the area. Sewer service is being extended from the north, through the Royal
Node area, to serve the planned development potential between Danebo and Green Hill Road.
4.Explain the role of VMT reduction in the adopted TransPlan. Is it a performance measure?
Is VMT reduction reviewed on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis?
As discussed in TransPlan, Oregon’s Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) requires compliance
with certain performance measures by either meeting a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction
target or obtaining approval of alternative measures. In May, 2001, the Eugene-Springfield
metropolitan area sought, and obtained, the Land Conservation and Development Commission’s
approval of an alternative standard to accomplish reduced reliance on the automobile pursuant to
OAR 660-012-0035(5). The approved standard consists of six performance measures designed
to reduce automobile reliance and increase transportation choices. The six performance
measures focus on nodal development, bus rapid transit, transportation demand management and
priority bikeway miles. The inclusion of the internal VMT and VMT per capita in 1995 and
2015 on the alternative performance measures chart was to demonstrate that VMT per capital is
unlikely to increase more than 5% (such a demonstration is a requirement of OAR 660-012-
0035(5)); these VMT numbers are not, however, a part of the approved alternative performance
measures. VMT numbers are also not reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Oregon’s TPR requires local governments and metropolitan planning organizations to evaluate
progress toward achieving the approved standards and the adopted benchmarks that correspond
2
with the standards. On March 5, 2008, Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) staff provided the
MPC with an evaluation and report on the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area’s progress
towards achieving the approved alternative performance measures. Consistent with the TPR and
the approved performance measures, the evaluation and report are based on a metropolitan-area-
wide analysis. LCOG’s 2008 memorandum and supporting documents are attached.
3
ATTACHMENT J
From: YEITER Kurt M
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:54 PM
To: CARROLL Phillip (SMTP); MILLS Jeffery (SMTP); LAWLESS John (SMTP); HLEDIK Randy (SMTP);
BEIERLE Heidi (SMTP); KNEELAND Ann (SMTP); DUNCAN Rick (SMTP)
Cc: CABANISS Jan E; WEISS Carolyn J; GARDNER Lisa A; INERFELD Rob; BROTHERTON Kathryn (Harrang)
Subject: RE: May 5 hearing: "Financially Constrained" list
Phillip,
In answer to your question about the term “Financially Constrained,” I’ll provide a short answer and, for
those who want more info, a longer answer. I appreciate questions that make us think about terms we
use in a daily, off-handed fashion.
Shorter answer: The term “Financially Constrained” is one of several categories, or lists, required of
projects by federal transportation planning rules. Financially Constrained project lists identify those
portions of the full lists of identified needs in the long-range plan that can be funded with reasonably
expected revenues over the plan horizon, which is typically 20 years. Thus, "financially constrained"
simply means planning for that portion of the total need constrained to the reasonably expected
financial resources. Projects on the “Financially Constrained” list typically represent a higher local or
regional priority than those on the “Future” list, assuming that some funding would be available for
those projects.
Longer Answer (with thanks to LCOG staff):
"Financially constrained" is a federal term, in this case a requirement of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) in the development of federally-required Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs)
and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs). Specifically, related to the RTP, it
arises from this requirement:
"Include [in the RTP] a financial plan that demonstrates the consistency of proposed transportation
investments with already available and projected sources of revenue. The financial plan shall compare
the estimated revenue from existing and proposed funding sources that can reasonably be expected to
be available for transportation uses, and the estimated costs of constructing, maintaining and operating
the total (existing plus planned) transportation system over the period of the plan. The estimated
revenue by existing revenue source (local, State, and Federal and private) available for transportation
projects shall be determined and any shortfalls identified. Proposed new revenues and/or revenue
sources to cover shortfalls shall be identified, including strategies for ensuring their availability for
proposed investments. Existing and proposed revenues shall cover all forecasted capital, operating, and
maintenance costs. All cost and revenue projections shall be based on the data reflecting the existing
situation and historical trends. For nonattainment and maintenance areas, the financial plan shall
address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the implementation of projects and programs
to reach air quality compliance."
You may have noticed that the federal RTP uses the term “Illustrative List” for the same project list that
TransPlan calls the “Future” list. As explained by LCOG staff: “The switch from "Future" to "Illustrative"
is one of both reflecting a change in the predominant federal language, and for clarity. Back in the
1990s, RTP project list(s) reflecting the portion of the need that was beyond the Financially Constrained
list(s) was generally referred to as the "Future" project list(s). This was supposed to confer the concept
that, due to funding constraints, those needs would likely not be met over the plan horizon. However, it
was mis-leading. The full set of all needs identified in the RTP is supposed to reflect the full projected
need for transportation investment over the horizon of the plan. The term "Future" mistakenly
conveyed an impression that those projects on the Future list(s) could be deferred beyond the horizon --
often mistakenly giving the impression that they weren't really needed.
The reality is that the "Future" list projects are needed within the time of the plan horizon, but likely
must be deferred due to a lack of funding. The term "Illustrative" was coined to reflect the fact that the
RTP identifies all of the projected need, lists the priorities that can be funded within Financial Constraint,
and then conveys the remaining Illustrative need that remains and would/will be provided should
additional funding become available.” The title of the “Future” lists has just not yet been changed in
TransPlan.”
TransPlan Chapter 3 provides more explanation about how the lists are used and how they differ
(excerpts are provided below):
“[The] Financial Plan describes total Capital Investment Action project costs, anticipated revenues from
existing sources, the expected gap in revenues, potential yields from new revenue sources, factors to
consider in determining project priorities, and the Financially Constrained TransPlan. ***
The projects selected for inclusion as Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Actions
establish a network of facilities that meet overall transportation needs for the 20-year planning
period.*** The Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Action project lists will be adopted,
making them legislatively binding. However, the specific timing, design, and financing provisions of
TransPlan’s recommended projects are not formally adopted. The project lists are not intended to serve
as an exclusive long-range programming document in the manner of the regional TIP, nor do they
formally approve or commit any funding.***
The Capital Investment Actions are presented in five tables/lists:
1a. Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects
1b. Future (Beyond 20 Years) 20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Roadway Projects
2. Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Transit Projects
3a. Financially Constrained 20-Year Capital Investment Actions: Bicycle Projects
3b. Future (Beyond 20 Years) Capital Investment Actions: Bicycle Projects
Project Implementation Phases
The Roadway and Bicycle project lists are subdivided into Financially Constrained and Future
implementation phases. The Financially Constrained project lists include Programmed and
Unprogrammed projects:
? Programmed (0-5 years) projects have been identified in a local agency's CIP, the regional TIP or the
STIP. These projects have funding sources identified that will enable them to proceed to project
construction.
? Unprogrammed (6-20 years) projects may not have specific funding sources identified, but are
expected to be funded with reasonable assumptions about expected revenues.
Future (beyond 20 years) projects are not planned for construction during the 20-year planning period.
These projects are not part of the financially constrained plan. However, these projects could be
implemented earlier if additional funding is identified.
Expanded
WorkPlan.pdf
As described in the Capital Investment Action Implementation Process on page 4 [of TransPlan Chapter
3], in all cases, inclusion of a project in a particular phase does not represent a commitment to complete
the project during that phase. It is expected that some projects may be accelerated and others
postponed due to changing conditions, funding availability, public input, or more detailed study
performed during programming and budgeting processes. “
I hope this helps or, at least, may have been somewhat interesting or educational. If you still have
questions, staff from Public Works will be on hand at the hearing.
See you on Tuesday, 5:00PM.
Kurt Yeiter
Senior Planner
682-8379
_____________________________________________
From: YEITER Kurt M
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:15 AM
To: *Eugene Planning Commissioners
Cc: WEISS Carolyn J; INERFELD Rob
Subject: Transportation Work Program PC
Dear Planning Commission,
th
At the joint hearing on April 7, staff promised to provide the attached work program.
The left-hand column is the work plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission, which was included in the earlier TransPlan amendment packet. The right-hand column
lists tasks that will need to be accomplished at the local level . Together, this table shows the breadth of
work that will be necessary to update TransPlan in a coordinated fashion with local land use
amendments.
The work plan will be supplemented soon with a flow chart that illustrates how various planning
activities will interact over the next few years. We will provide the new graphic as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Kurt
Kurt Yeiter
Senior Planner
City of Eugene
Planning and Development Department
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
߬¬¿½¸³»²¬ Ó
S U M M A R Y M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
th
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue
June 29, 2009
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Phillip Carroll, Chair; Ann Kneeland, Vice Chair, Heidi Beierle, Rick Duncan,
Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Cindy Clark, Lisa Gardner, Rene Kane,
Steve Nystrom, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and Development Department; Gary
McNeel, Rob Inerfeld, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City
Attorney; Tim Taylor, Majeska Seese-Green, Kevin Matthews, Pat Johnston,
Jared Mason-Gere, guests.
ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, member.
I. PUBLIC COMMENT
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 11, 2009
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Beierle, moved that the May 11, 2009
minutes be approved as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
III. NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PROGRAM UPDATE
Staff: Michael Kinnison, 682-5009
IV. FINAL ACTION: TRANSPLAN AND METRO PLAN TEXT
Staff: Rob Inerfeld, 682-5343
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 Project 506, Beltline Highway
from River Road to Delta Highway, 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. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
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 Project 333, West Eleventh
Avenue from Greenhill Road to Terry Street, 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. The motion passed 4:2, with Commissioners
Beierle, Duncan, Hledik and Lawless voting in favor of the motion, and
Commissioners Carroll and Kneeland voting in opposition to the motion.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 1
V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items from Commission
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 2
M I N U T E S
Regular Meeting
Eugene Planning Commission
th
Sloat Room—Atrium Building—99 West 10 Avenue
June 29, 2009
11:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Phillip Carroll, Chair; Ann Kneeland, Vice Chair, Heidi Beierle, Rick Duncan,
Randy Hledik, John Lawless, members; Cindy Clark, Lisa Gardner, Rene Kane,
Steve Nystrom, Carolyn Weiss, Planning and Development Department; Gary
McNeel, Rob Inerfeld, Public Works Department; Kathryn Brotherton, City
Attorney; Tim Taylor, Majeska Seese-Green, Kevin Matthews, Pat Johnston,
Jared Mason-Gere, guests.
ABSENT: Jeffery Mills, member.
Mr. Carroll convened the Planning Commission and called for public comment.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 11, 2009
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Ms. Beierle, moved that the May 11, 2009
minutes be approved as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 5:0.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
Ms. Kneeland arrived at 11:35 a.m.
Responding to a question from Kevin Matthews, Ms. Brotherton stated the West Eleventh
Avenue widening project was being processed as a quasi-judicial matter, the record was closed
and the Planning Commission could take no additional information.
Kevin Matthews,
P.O. Box 1588, said it would be helpful for the public for the Planning
Commission to clarify which processes were following the legislative path and which were
following the quasi-judicial path. He said the neighborhood program was an important area of
city activity. While it had been through some ups and downs over the years, the current
leadership was earning confidence, and he encouraged the Planning Commission to support the
program.
Majeska Seese-Green
, P.O. Box 1214, speaking as the Whiteaker Community Council (WCC)
neighborhood empowerment initiative representative, echoed Mr. Matthews regarding the
neighborhood services staff. She asserted the 2009 Neighborhood Summit did not have the
authority to deal with priorities for the neighborhoods and the City, as stated in the Agenda Item
Summary (AIS) entitled Neighborhood Program Update included in today’s agenda packet. She
added some people felt it was time for the neighborhood empowerment initiative to evolve into
another stage and be updated.
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 3
III. NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PROGRAM UPDATE
Mr. Kinnison offered the staff report and reviewed the Significant Events—2005 to Date
including:
Neighborhood Empowerment Initiative (NEI) identified as Council priority since 2005.
Office relocated from Community Development to Planning and to a “public” space on
the ground floor of Atrium.
Neighborhood Matching Grant Program reinstated in 2007 (funding not identified past
FY2010).
Staffing changes included creation of two neighborhood planner positions, internal
consolidation of positions and program management turnover. Current staffing included
a Program Coordinator, Neighborhood Planner and Program Manager.
Mr. Kinnision reviewed Program Services:
Funding Neighborhood Improvements.
Facilitating Communication.
Providing Information and Facilitating Delivery of Services.
Neighborhood Based Planning.
Building Neighborhood Capacity.
Neighborhood Empowerment.
Looking Ahead.
Mr. Lawless thanked Mr. Kinnison for the message he offered. He agreed it was time to look at
land use implications of the overall process and try to mature them.
Responding to a question from Mr. Carroll, Mr. Kinnison said the consultant used a variety of
outreach methods including targeted interviews with City staff, neighborhood leaders and
community groups, as well as a web based survey from which they identified missed
opportunities for linkages between non-profits organizations, community groups and
neighborhood associations. The program was supporting community mediation services to do
targeted mediation in the Amazon neighborhood which provided another way to link with a
community group.
Mr. Carroll opined neighborhoods were not only geographic areas but also communities of
interest and asked how the City was approaching those communities of interest.
Mr. Kinnison said neighborhoods boundaries provided a framework for action and a way to
resolve issues that resounded through all neighborhoods, citing collaborating with Police Chief
Pete Kerns and the Eugene Police Department (EPD) Crime Prevention Unit as examples.
Ms. Beierle said the Implementation Team had discussed Recommendation #4,Develop a three-
pronged approach to community organizing, and the difference between neighborhoods,
neighborhood associations, and interest based versus issue based organizing.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Mr. Kinnison stated it was challenging in larger
neighborhoods to encourage participation and keep people involved. Any changes would need to
be carefully implemented to maintain leadership capacity in the new configuration. Guidelines
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 4
had been in place since 2000 but not successfully implemented. Mr. Kinnison was not aware of
how school district boundaries were drawn.
Mr. Duncan wanted to move forward to develop a process for addressing very large
neighborhood associations, such as Cal Young Neighborhood Association and Active Bethel
Citizens. The Cal Young group tended to gather by issues that varied by individual
neighborhoods within the association which covered a large geographic area.
Ms. Kneeland thanked Mr. Kinnison for the important work of the Neighborhood Program and
the growing trust it was achieving. The hands off approach had encouraged strong proposals
from a strong neighborhood voice for recent projects. Such a process would foster an
environment where the City and the neighborhood groups could work together and respect each
other both when there was agreement and disagreement.
Mr. Lawless stated that when implementing Recommendation #9, Implement neighborhood-based
planning, it would be important to educate, link and empower the grass roots efforts that
happened for neighborhood planning to the guiding principles of the State land use goals and the
City’s Growth Management Policies (GMP). For neighborhood based planning to be useful, the
participants needed to be held accountable to manage the decisions and investigations under the
land use goals and GMP.
Ms. Beierle asked that clarification of the distinction between neighborhoods and neighborhood
associations be pursued early in the process. She noted while attending the Neighborhoods, USA
Conference people were speaking about neighborhoods rather than neighborhood associations.
Thinking about neighborhoods may better help balance relationships. She asked how well the
Neighborhood Empowerment Initiative (NEI) was functioning and if it was time to turn it into
something new. She encouraged the Planning Commission to establish a more enduring
connection with the neighborhood groups and develop a formal reporting structure.
Mr. Kinnison responded discussions were underway regarding what the NEI has done and
whether it was as effective as it could be.
Mr. Carroll said the Planning Commission had its scope of responsibilities and saw the
neighborhoods through that window. He asked if there were other standing City boards,
commissions and committees staff worked with for which there were standing neighborhood
liaisons.
Mr. Kinnison opined the relationships were getting closer. He had been invited to serve on the
Diversity Advisory Board which was looking at implementing the Diversity and Equity Strategic
Plan (DESP). He added Lorna Flormoe had been working with the SNAPS project to develop an
outreach training for neighborhoods targeting unrepresented groups to broaden their participation
and staff were working more closely with sustainability staff. Mr. Kinnison said a
recommendation had been made to move the Neighborhood Program to the City Manager’s
Office.
IV. FINAL ACTION: TRANSPLAN AND METRO PLAN TEXT
Mr. Inerfeld offered the staff report and a reviewed the status of the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) and Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) revisions as outlined
in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). He asserted the City Council was a decision maker in the
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 5
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
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
Mr. Lawless withdrew the second to the motion.
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 Project 506, Beltline Highway
from River Road to Delta Highway, 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. The motion passed unanimously, 6:0.
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 Project 333, West Eleventh
Avenue from Greenhill Road to Terry Street, 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. The motion passed 4:2, with Commissioners
Beierle, Duncan, Hledik and Lawless voting in favor of the motion, and
Commissioners Carroll and Kneeland voting in opposition to the motion.
Mr. Carroll thanked Mr. Inerfeld for his work on the project.
V. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Weiss explained staff would be seeking approval from the City Council in the fall for tools
that could be used in an opportunity siting pilot program. Staff hoped Planning Commissioners
would talk with their Council Buddies regarding incentives similar to the Multi Use Property Tax
Exemption (MUPTE) program. There was consensus on the part of commissioners to engage in
that dialogue with councilors this summer.
Ms. Gardner announced Jan Cabaniss would be retiring from the City on July 17, 2009. Ms.
Cabaniss had supported the Planning Commission for over 20 years.
B. Other Items from Commission
In response to Mr. Duncan, Ms. Gardner said Commission agendas were currently being sent to
commissioners electronically and in paper form. With a straw poll, Commissioners Beierle,
Carroll, Kneeland, Lawless wished to continue to receive paper copies, and Commissioners
Duncan and Hledik were satisfied with the electronic version.
Responding to a question from Mr. Hledik, Ms. Brotherton agreed to check on recent legislative
changes to the required periodic reporting for board and commission members.
Mr. Duncan reported that the Comprehensive Land Assessment group continued to meet monthly
and would complete its work by the end of 2009.
Mr. Hledik reported the last Planning Commission meeting coincided with the Airport Master
Plan update meeting which focused on land use. Although neither he, Mr. Flock nor Mr. Yeiter
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 8
were able to attend, questions about glide slopes and noise contours were submitted for
consideration on future impacts on land use planning.
Mr. Carroll asked if Mr. Matthews’ comments about quasi-judicial process had been addressed.
Ms. Brotherton explained quasi-judicial versus legislative had been a close call. She opined
changes to the agenda language would be helpful.
Mr. Carroll adjourned the meeting at 1:20 p.m.
(Recorded by Linda Henry)
MINUTES—Eugene Planning Commission June 29, 2009 Page 9