minhead.gif (12878 bytes)

APPROVED 11/7/00




Wednesday, October 18, 2000

6:00 p.m.

Eugene Hilton Hotel, 66 E. 6th St., Eugene

1. SIXTEENTH READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance PA 1132 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised “Transportation Element” and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan); and Adopting a Severability Clause (NBA & PM 9/8/99, 9/29/99, 10/20/99, 12/1/99, 1/25/00, 2/15/00, 3/14/00, 3/28/00, 4/11/00, 5/2/00, 6/27/00, 7/12/00, 8/9/00, 9/6/00 & 9/26/00).


Commissioner Peter Sorenson presided.  He called the Joint Elected Officials TransPlan meeting to order for the Lane County Board of Commissioners.  Present from Lane County: Commissioners Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer.


Eugene City Councilor Betty Taylor called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order.  Present from the Eugene City Council:  Bonnie Bettman, David Kelly, Scott Meisner, Nancy Nathanson, Gary Pape, and Gary Rayor.  Mayor Jim Torrey arrived later.


Mayor Sid Leiken called the meeting to order for the Springfield City Council.  Present from the Springfield City Council:  Anne Ballew, Tammy Fitch, Lyle Hatfield, Christine Lundberg and Fred Simmons.


Hilary Wylie called the meeting to order for the Lane Transit District.  Present from the LTD Board: Rob Bennett, Pat Hocken, Dave Kleger, and Virginia Lauritsen.


Sorenson stated for Lane County it was the Continued Discussion and Sixteenth Reading and Deliberation on Ordinance PA 1132.


MOTION:  to approve the Sixteenth Reading and Deliberation and Setting a Seventeenth Reading and Deliberation of Ordinance PA 1132 for November 1, 2000.


Weeldreyer MOVED, Green SECONDED.


VOTE: 4-0 (Morrison out of room).




Sorenson noted he had written a letter and placed it on all of the chairs.


Sorenson also noted that each jurisdiction would approve the minutes at their own meetings.


Tom Schwetz, LCOG, summarized the progress to date.  He noted everyone received a list of the resolved issues, unresolved issues and the alternative measures.  (Copy in file.)  He said a copy of the unresolved issues would be directed to MPC for their process.  He said the MPC met to decide how they would process the unresolved issues and try to identify potential resolution among all four bodies, then recommend resolution to the individual agencies for final action.  He noted that there were seven unresolved issues that would come back to the individual bodies.


Scott Meisner, Eugene City Councilor, said he had taken the time to read the letter from Peter Sorenson that was left at their seats.  He appreciated the letter and thanked Sorenson for offering the letter.  He said that TransPlan had been going on for seven or eight years and his own involvement was for six years.  He noted for the past six years he had supported and endorsed TransPlan goals, which he continues to think are commendable.  He said he was hopeful that when the final project comes for adoption, that it would effectively address the connection that it defines between land use and transportation, with a balance of system improvements focused on all modes: effective traffic demand management strategies and land use measures that are based on real nodal development.  He added that for some time during the joint meetings, he had grown discouraged that the update as drafted (and as redrafted) simply does not meet those goals either for the present time or for the 20-year plan. 


Meisner read from the agenda cover memo: “Does TransPlan provide an adequate framework of land use measures, transportation demand management, transportation system improvement and finance to guide regional transportation system planning and development and related land use decisions in the Eugene/Springfield metropolitan area over the next 20 years?”  He added the second policy issue was for the Eugene City Council:  “Does TransPlan adequately implement the growth management policies adopted by this council in 1998?”  He said based on the draft, the discussions, the recommendations and resolutions to date, the answer to both questions is no.  He said the plan as it is presented at this time accomplishes neither purpose, even adequately as was stated in the policy issue questions. 


Meisner made a motion solely on behalf of the Eugene City Council.  He moved that the Eugene City Council approve and join in the substantive concerns and process suggestions set out in Commissioner Sorenson’s letter dated October 18, 2000.


Betty Taylor seconded.


Meisner stated the motion reflects a response to the letter that he believes is important.  He noted without substantive and substantial improvement in the redrafting of TransPlan, he didn’t believe he would be able to support it.  He said it didn’t meet the goals of TransPlan or respond to the policy issue questions.


David Kelly, Eugene City Councilor, thanked Sorenson for writing the letter and to Councilor Meisner for making the motion.  He said he thought that TransPlan started out with solid goals with some good policy directions.  He added with the policy details (and how likely they are to have an affect) they are weak.  He said the Eugene City Council tried to forward recommendations to the joint elected officials that would strengthen those policies.  He said for the 14 substantive suggestions that the Eugene Council brought, only three had been accepted.  He supported the motion.


Bonnie Bettman, Eugene City Councilor, said she was glad to see the letter and also supported it.  She said the TransPlan document before them, doesn’t fulfill the goals.  She said they had spent eight years and millions of taxpayer dollars on the document and it needed more strengthening for alternative modes.   She said they have to make sure that they could adequately fund operations, maintenance and preservation.


Gary Rayor, Eugene City Councilor said that TransPlan could be looked at in two ways, a project list with text and policies of verbiage to get funds to build the projects, and a 20-year policy and guideline.  He noted because of the compromises that were made, this document would not affect VMT, and it would be taken out of their hands on the local level.  He said he had concerns about funding the bike program as it is a small part.  He said maintaining the existing infrastructure is contentious on whether the money should be used in that way.  He said that nodal development doesn’t meet the LCDC definition.  He said he didn’t think the LCOG staff had been responsive in getting the policy correct.


Nancy Nathanson, Eugene City Councilor, said she had just received the letter.  She said she was not completely satisfied with TransPlan either but it is a time that they needed to be realistic.  She noted they have to be able to adopt something as a group of agencies, and not everyone shares the same concerns and they don’t share the same set of solutions about solving the problems.  She agreed that MPC needs to discuss parts of this.  She said the agencies had already leveled off at their compromise point and she wondered if anything would be different if they sent it to MPC.  She mentioned that after the first week of November, they would know more about what can be done as a local community because of the ballot measures.  She asked if the Eugene City Council was trying to make a political statement or affect a change in the outcome of the document.  She said she didn’t know how much more the document could change by going to MPC.


Taylor said they do want to make a change in the document.


Rayor said he wanted a reading to see if the plan is acceptable or not.


VOTE: 5-2, Nathanson, Pape dissenting.


Green said he wanted the record to reflect the previous process that was taken by the Eugene City Council.  He noted it had been orchestrated before this meeting because the letter was on his chair when he returned from dinner.  He was glad the letter was on Peter Sorenson’s stationery, as it didn’t reflect the majority of the Board of Commissioners’ position.  He was not in favor of the action that had just taken place as it sets a bad tone to the process.  He said it is fine to disagree with the process, but to do it in this political nature, stating they wanted to change, sends a mixed signal.  He said if they wanted to affect change, they would come in a real process and discuss the issues under disagreement and go through the process.  He said that they wanted to make a political statement by doing this.  He said that he understood there was a constituency that they were trying to appease, but there is work to be done and whatever they didn’t agree on, they would send back to MPC to get direction for the jurisdictions to vote.


Lyle Hatfield, Springfield City Councilor, echoed what Green had said.  He noted it was the first time that he had seen the letter.  He said while it was Sorenson’s desire to effect the changes, there is a process that was agreed to and that was set aside in favor of a particular special interest group who had been vocal.  He said it is a plan that has to work for over 200,000 in Lane County.  He said as they move forward, he is optimistic that they will have a document that had been made by a sacrifice of compromise by all the constituent groups in the metropolitan area.  He said as a result, the planning commission and Roads Advisory Group recommended this plan to the jurisdictions.  He added there were thousands of volunteer hours that were put into this document.  He said they have to come up with a system to resolve issues other than a political ploy in front of television.  He said they have to come to an agreement and stick to it, including the process.  He said if people don’t like the process, then that needs to be discussed.


Morrison concurred with Green that it was a surprise.  She agreed with Hatfield’s comments that there were a lot of people who had been participants in the process and they have all compromised on issues to try to move the plan forward.  She compared it to working with a child who had decided to throw a tantrum.  She said everyone had put work into this and compromised and tried to move forward.  She resented the process that took place tonight.


Fred Simmons, Springfield City Councilor, concurred with Hatfield that when they started the process, he thought the document was functionally flawed.  He didn’t disagree with the concept that the Eugene City Council voted on.  He said the document is unrealistic, but they spent a lot of time and energy in developing a strategy to achieve resolution.  He said because they have been involved with the process for such a long period, the strategies that were developed needed to be respected.  He said he was disappointed, but was sympathetic to the concepts that have been stated.  He said it would put a tremendous burden on MPC but despite going forward under protest, that they are able to work together collectively as a group of elected officials and achieve resolution.


Weeldreyer stated she saw the letter for the first and wasn’t aware that the process would be taking this turn.  She expressed disappointment.


Anne Ballew, Springfield City Councilor, echoed others.  She said she came here to work and identify points left to MPC for resolution.  She added that she was disappointed and didn’t want to start again.


Nathanson said there was a lot to gain but a lot to lose.  She asked why the Eugene City Council adopted the resolution.  She asked what the practical effect was besides a political statement.  She said because they achieved levels of group decision on some points, she wanted to continue.  She said she didn’t want the state handling the affairs.  She asked if the effect of the vote was to be a strong statement that they are displeased or was the suggestion for the whole group to say they want to revisit certain elements that were noted in Sorenson’s letter.  She said in essence, they were calling for a reconsideration of previous votes.  She asked what the point was of what they did.


David Kelly, Eugene City Councilor, said he didn’t view this as a political ploy or a political act, but as a governance act.  He said he wasn’t appeasing anyone.  He noted it was a chance to point to some of the key issues that following the process for resolution, they wanted to discuss.  He added that five to ten minutes per item was not enough time to have a substantive discussion on most of the issues.  He said he sees this as providing direction from the Eugene City Council to the MPC.


Pat Hocken, LTD Board Member, suggested going forward with the discussion of the issues.


Dwyer said the process had not been worthy of serious debate.  He said it is designed to move things forward.  He said the letter (even though it was a surprise) allows focusing on the issues to articulate concerns.  He said it is a challenge to take the questions and resolve them in a way that is beneficial to the larger community.


Jim Carlson, City of Eugene, explained that nodal development was a series of six issues that were discussed at the joint Eugene and Springfield City Council meetings.  He noted they received an E-mail from LTD that they reviewed them and voted to concur with the proposal resulting from the Eugene and Springfield session.


Jan Childs, City of Eugene, reported the Eugene and Springfield City Councils met in a joint work session for two hours.  She said it was a discussion meeting and it was an opportunity for people to indicate how they thought about the six issues.  She noted the majority of the time was spent on two of the issues: the definition of nodal development (it was critical of resolution of the remaining issues), and the new land use policy number 5.  She added both the Eugene and Springfield City Councils agreed to the changes that are in the packets.  She noted there were two dissenting votes on the revised definition on nodal development.  She said it was their recommendation to vote on these as a consent calendar item.


Kelly said there were four places in TransPlan where nodal development was referenced, and appreciated having the legislative language to bring all four into harmony.  He noted in the legislative language that for the change to land use policy number 1, he suggested fixing this and bringing it into compliance.  He said the last page, 2 –15 had references to the three types of centers.


Bettman asked when they would be adopting the definition, if it will be adopted with TransPlan.


Childs responded it was.  She said the definition would be both adopted as part of TransPlan and it will be added to the Metro Plan glossary as a Metro Plan definition.


MOTION: in favor of the Nodal Development issue resolution, Issues 28 A.1 – 28 A.6.


VOTE: Passed unanimously in all jurisdictions.


Carlson noted on transportation demand management, there are three positions: the City of Eugene supported the change to the TDM policy that would establish benchmarks and if the benchmarks were not achieved, then mandatory TDM programs would be established, Lane County and LTD approved the original staff recommendation to expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs, and Springfield also agreed with the change but put in additional language that they did not support mandatory TDM, but they did not support language that rejected mandatory TDM.


Carlson stated they could either try for the original staff recommendation, which is what Springfield, LTD and Lane County approved, or there could be discussions to have the Eugene Councilors explain why they would propose to make a change.


Hatfield said Springfield supported staff recommendation along with Lane County and the LTD Board.  He added they don’t support mandatory TDM measures unless the jurisdiction specifically votes for it in a particular situation.  He said they did not want anything in TransPlan that would prohibit a jurisdiction from imposing something.  He said they were favoring local control.


Bettman noted it did not make TDM mandatory; it provided an opportunity to have benchmarks to monitor whether or not the TDM voluntarily programs are in place and whether they are actually working.  She said it was a way to demonstrate to the state that there is a commitment to the overall compliance of TPR by creating benchmarks for TDM.


Rayor said it was one of the places where the text is important.  He noted they wanted the flexibility of alternate performance measures and if they don’t work, that there is no mandatory method to make it work.  He said they want maximum flexibility to not meet the state transportation rule.


Kelly said they have policies in place in association with land use measures.  He said there should be benchmarks that all jurisdictions could agree with that should be the goals of TDM.


Hocken stated that the LTD Board as a whole had an objection to establishing benchmarks.  She said their concern is deciding right now (without knowing what the benchmarks are) if they don’t meet the benchmarks, that they will jump to mandatory TDM.  She added it is important to track how transportation demand management is working, but didn’t want to decide now on something that will take place five years from now.


Hatfield noted the alternative measures are benchmarks that are measured at five-year intervals.  He said there was nothing in TransPlan that prevents jurisdictions from setting additional benchmarks and measuring them.  He said he didn’t want to create benchmarks and pre-commit to mandatory TDM measures.


Meisner said he wants a metropolitan document that all jurisdictions can buy into and the language that Springfield used (if Option 2 is selected) is important to retain the authority to employ and implement mandatory measures.


Wylie echoed what Hocken said about the LTD Board deliberations.  She said they came to the point of view that they wouldn’t mind benchmarks and if they weren’t met, they could consider various actions.  She said they didn’t want to set mandatory TDMs at this time.


Dwyer noted in terms of mandatory TDM, if they establish benchmarks, and they know they don’t have a program that will work, they would be setting themselves up for failure.  He asked who would be enforcing mandatory TDMs and how it would be enforced.  He said he sees it as another process.


Schwetz reported that the commute mode share is something that they could measure, and an effective TDM program would increase the shares of alternative modes.  He said they could look at the number of group bus pass holders and set targets for getting the group bus passes out more into the community.  He added they may be looking at peak hour congestion, where TDM could address those problems and mode share on congested facilities would be something they could look at the peak hour community trip.


Nathanson asked what would happen if the voluntarily program fails to meet the benchmarks.  She asked what the mandatory program would be.  She supported the concept as it makes sense and something that they will have to do.


Kelly suggested a compromise.  He suggested having the language that would establish TDM benchmarks and if the benchmarks are not achieved, the joint elected officials would consider what actions to take at the next TransPlan update.


Hatfield said for the language, he would propose a change to the TDM policy (that would establish TDM benchmarks) and if the benchmarks are not achieved, mandatory TDM programs may be established.


MOTION: to establish TDM benchmarks and if the benchmarks are not achieved, mandatory programs may be established.


Sorenson said the proposal by Eugene is what is labeled as Option 1.


Regarding the language that has “may,” Weeldreyer said she is more comfortable with that than the original language.  She added the importance of a voluntarily program is that there is some consequence for not voluntarily achieving transportation demand management.  She said it puts the information out.


Sorenson noted that Option 2 would expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs.


Sorenson said with amended Option 1:  it would establish TDM benchmarks and if the benchmarks are not achieved, mandatory programs may be established.


Hatfield added benchmarks should be established by each jurisdiction.


Carlson reported the way it would work now, if there would be a benchmark established midterm within a review cycle, an individual jurisdiction could make a mandatory program at that time.  He added during the periodic review, it would be an open question among all of the jurisdictions as to what the policy would look like.


Bettman stated that Option 2 is the existing language and the intent of Option 1 was to add to that existing language.  She said if they adopt the new Option 1, it doesn’t say anything about expanding TDM programs.  She suggested adding establishing TDM benchmarks to Option 2 (the existing language).


MOTION: to add to existing language, establish TDM benchmarks and if the benchmarks are not achieved, mandatory programs may be established, expand existing TDM programs and develop new TDM programs.




Eugene – 7-1.


Lane County – 4-1.


Springfield -5-1.


LTD – 4-2.


There was consensus on the compromise.


Carlson reported the next issue was a general issue to add a goal related to the region status as a major regional center.  He said it was as a result of testimony at the public hearing.  He noted staff made a recommendation on added goal language, Section J, and added definition of intent language.  He said Lane County, LTD and Springfield agreed to Option 2.  He said with Option 2, Eugene suggested a different way to achieve what they thought was the same objective, to amend the definition of intent statement for Goal 2 statement.  He noted they were both efforts to recognize that the region is a regional center and there are visitors as well as residents and employees that work and live in the area.


Carlson said Option 1 adds goal language that they are supportive of travel by non residents to and through the area.  He added that under the definition of intent, a transportation system that is supportive of travel by non-residents to and through the area recognizing the need to allow efficient access to and through the community by non-residents as well as residents and recognizes Eugene-Springfield status and responsibility of a major regional center and the second largest metropolitan area in Oregon.


Carlson noted that Option 2 would not be adding any J language to either the goal or policy.  He said the intent would be that the language would be enough to deal with the same issues.


Kelly recalled the concern the Eugene City Council had was by adding an entirely separate system for visitors, they were placing more emphasis that was warranted and what concerned most was the language that discussed allowing efficient access through the community.


Rayor noted that Option 2 was satisfactory.  He said Option 1 had bad language and he wouldn’t support it.


Bettman said she also supports Option 2.


Meisner recalled in Goal 2, it is the list of transportation system characteristics that would enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area’s quality of life and economic opportunity providing a transportation system that is: balanced, accessible, efficient and safe.  He said that Option 1 would add a tenth characteristic.  He said they discussed not adding a new characteristic that just focused on travel of non-residents.  He suggested an Option 2a, revising (with the addition of the words and visitors) the existing language in the policy definitions and then adding the second sentence from the proposed J in Option 1.


Hatfield said he could accept the changed definition of B.  He said in reading through J, there is a last sentence that should be included:  “It recognizes Eugene and Springfield’s status and responsibility as a major regional center and second largest metropolitan area in Oregon.” He said he could support that.


Bettman said the last sentence sums up her opposition to Option 1.  She said it is a statement that is in the Metro Plan and belongs in it, not in a transportation plan.  She didn’t support putting it in there.


Anne Ballew, Springfield City Council, wanted to add: “and visitors” as it is more appropriate.  She said they are not explaining why it is important to have accessible transportation for residents, they are only talking about accessible transportation for visitors.  She suggested Option 2 as originally presented.


Green asked what the fundamental difference was between a non-resident and visitor.


Sorenson noted the concern was that the bulk of TransPlan is written for the purpose of transporting people within the Eugene and Springfield area, and two groups have come forward with concerns.


Dave Kleger, LTD Board, said he didn’t care which language they used as long as they know they have to handle more than the internal business.  He said if they try to stop through movement, that they would do the economy harm.


Hatfield withdrew his change.


Sorenson read Option 2 as follows: “An accessible transportation system is one that serves all areas of the community and offers both residents and visitors convenient and reliable transportation options.”


MOTION:  adding Option 2 language to TransPlan.




Springfield 6-0.


Eugene 7-0.


LTD 5-0, one abstention.


Lane County 3 yes, 0 no votes, 0 abstentions.


Carlson noted that they only received two positive votes from Lane County on Option 2, but no negative votes.  He asked the County if they were still supportive of Option 1.


Simmons asked if they were to add the language back that was removed, if it was possible for the Commissioners to support it.


Green noted the position he supported was the one in his attachment.


Hatfield noted there were two different issues: one is amending the language in b) and the other issue is do they add the language in J. 


Weeldreyer stated she would vote to accept Option 2.


Carlson said with regard to bicycles, the current bicycle policy number 1 states “To construct and improve the Region’s bikeway system and provide bicycle system support facilities.”  He noted that Lane County, LTD and Springfield thought the language was okay.  He added the City of Eugene wanted to make it clear to provide bicycle system support facilities for both new and existing development.  He said the original language did not preclude that but their language was more explicit about encouraging it.


Hatfield said the existing policy didn’t preclude nor mandate retrofitting existing developments.  He said the amended language has mandated retrofits to existing developments that would be costly.  He asked how the City of Eugene dealt with the issue and the language.


Rayor said they were not thinking of new bike lanes on existing streets because they are already required on collectors and arterials.  He added they were thinking of bike parking areas by buildings, not so much of a requirement to force owners to retrofit bicycle parking, but if they come in for a permit, that bicycle parking and other facilities would be given consideration.


Carlson said for new development, both cities require bicycle support facilities in new development.  He said for existing development, it may not be the owner of the property that puts in the support facilities, it may be cities through flexible transportation dollars.  He said that Eugene did not have the mechanism to force and existing development to add something unless they are redeveloping a property for sale.


Kelly stated there wasn’t an intention in the revision to mandate that every existing property in the city would add bike parking or bike racks.  He said it was acknowledging the fact that if they were really supporting bike transportation, existing property owners over time needed to look at providing bike parking.  He added that part of supporting bikes as a mode of transportation was to pay attention to existing development as well as new, because existing development would be dominating.


Meisner said none of the city council intended that it would be a mandated retrofit.  He said they didn’t want to be barred as a city from retrofitting nor barred when an existing development comes into redevelopment or expansion from then mandating the support facilities.  He added there was no intention to put out a mandate to every commercial owner in town to expand support facilities.


Nathanson noted that bicycle system support facilities meant bike cages, racks and other parking facilities.  She said it is a good goal and if it were adopted by one or both cities as a requirement to accompany redevelopment of a property, she didn’t think it was a burden using property or committing financial investment to support this.  She thought it was supportable as a goal.


Hatfield stated with new development, Springfield requires bicycle facilities and their minimum development standards that are applied to redevelopment and expansion permits have bicycle issues in it.  He said he could support adding new and existing redevelopment/expansion.


Wylie stated that LTD would not be taking a position on this issue.


Rob Bennett, LTD, reported that LTD is not taking a position on the issue but if the language says new and substantial redevelopment, then it gives it a chance to work effectively.


Meisner stated it should say “for both new development and redevelopment/expansion.”  He said it would read clearer.  He supported the revision that Hatfield had made to retain the language as modified in Option 1 for both new development and redevelopment/expansion.


Ballew said the way it was stated originally was simple and straightforward.  She said nothing prevented a jurisdiction from applying it any way they want.  She said she could support the revision.


MOTION: to accept a modified Option 1.


Hatfield stated he understood the concern about redevelopment.  He noted they didn’t have the problem as it was originally written.  He said he could support the amended language because it fits with their current development code for minimum development standards.  He said they require street trees, sidewalks and bicycle facilities.  He agreed with colleagues from Springfield that they could wordsmith this to the point where they do a great injustice.  He suggested being more flexible for a better document. 


Hatfield said to fit Springfield’s language, for both new development and redevelopment/expansion meeting minimum development standards, would be a way to put it in Springfield language to be specific as to what they are discussing.




LTD: did not participate.


Springfield:  4-2.


Lane County:  3-2.


Eugene:  7-0.


Carlson noted the existing TSI pedestrian Policy 2 reads:  “provides for a continuous pedestrian network with reasonably direct travel routes between destination points.”  He added that Lane County, LTD and Springfield accepted the language and Eugene amended to strike the word “reasonably” so the policy reads:  “Provides for a continuous pedestrian network with direct travel routes between destination points.  He commented that in the transportation planning rule, that is where the word “reasonably” came from.


Kleger was concerned that not using the “reasonable” word could put some public officials in a position of deciding whether or not to run a route through a less than desirable situations.  He said they all wanted things as direct as could practicably be done.


Hatfield asked his colleagues from Eugene reconsider this. 


Christine Lundberg, Springfield City Councilor, said she is having concerns about wordsmithing where they are too definitive about what they are trying to accomplish.  She said even though it is well directed, they will have to apply this real setting in real community neighborhoods.  She said she wanted to use the plan that could be workable within the neighborhoods.


Rayor said when discussing transportation through an area, there was an attached statement called definition and intent.  He said the definition sounded fine, to leave the word “reasonably” and to add “definition” and “intent,” and taking it directly from the TPR would be fine for him.


Kelly said that Option 2, to add the definition from the TPR to the definition and intent statement would be fine.


MOTION: to approve Option 2, the way it was originally in the draft, but adding the language of the TPR definition to the definition and intent, making it clear.


VOTE: Passed unanimously in all four jurisdictions.


Schwetz explained the federal guidelines say that TransPlan shall be reviewed and updated tri-annually to confirm its validity and consistency with current and forecasted transportation and land use conditions. He noted it is to make TransPlan an ongoing decision tool to maintain the technical utility of the plan and to keep it relevant for current issues.  He said the plan that will be adopted represented a snapshot in time as to what the bodies could agree to.  He said they then move forward, implementing actions, and performance monitoring and make updates based on the feedback in a three-year cycle.


Schwetz noted when staff went through the measures, they considered that the measure should capture the effects of the key strategies in the plan (bus rapid transit and nodal development and TDM) and what DLCD and LCDC are looking for in terms of a proposal to LCDC.  He added the measures should be indicative of the impacts of several strategies.  He said it was a new process that LCDC was making them go through and they weren’t sure how LCDC would be using the rules.  He commented on the 10-minute transit service.  He said that Kelly pointed out that in TransPlan where there was a similar measure, with a 100% increase that represents by 2015 there would be 32% of all the households in the area with access to ten minute to transit service.  He added in TransPlan they had a number listed as 88% and the change came from when they put the measure in TransPlan in May 1999, LTD’s planner had in mind a bus feeder service that actually had ten minute service.  He said the feeder service covered a wide area and that is why 88% of the households had access to that 10-minute service.  He added since then, they had adjusted their plans, the neighborhood service would have frequent service, but as a result, it lowers the total amount of households that would have access to 10-minute service.  He said they are discussing increasing that number by 100 percent.


Schwetz discussed the acres of zoned nodal development.  He noted it is an experimental measure in trying to find an appropriate target.  He said it makes sense to monitor the acres they are zoning in nodal development and they want to achieve the number of acres that they designated in TransPlan.  He said the acres of nodal development in the plan are 4,600 acres in 42 nodes.  He noted the 1,000 acres was a preliminary estimate where it was uncertain what type of target they should have, but it should be based on the work that the two cities are doing in trying to get at their implementation of nodal development.


Schwetz said that VMT is still important and they are required to track VMT per capita and they will be doing that in the plan.  He said under trend conditions (not implementing BRT or any elements of the TransPlan strategies) VMT is expected to increase by 8.4% and the TransPlan target showed a -0.2% decrease, saying they will be maintaining the existing levels of VMT per capita. 


Bob Cortright, LCDC, reported that a month ago their transportation subcommittee met.  He said the question is still--and the legal tests for the commission is--are the alternative measures a significant reduction in reliance of the automobile.  He said the subcommittee explored that.  He said they suggested refinements to alternative measures to get at the details for TransPlan.  He encouraged the jurisdictions to adopt most of the plan implementation measures as benchmarks, because the nodal development strategy was key to showing a significant reduction in reliance of the automobile.  He noted measuring its implementation directly is important and they want to see benchmarks that do that.


Schwetz stated that much of the comment in addition to suggesting different measures was focusing on the use of the VMT target instead of alternative measures.  He said they jointly indicated a preference for pursuing alternative measures at the July 12 meeting.


Rayor didn’t understand how they could have –0.2% and be meeting the state goal of a 5% reduction.  He said he had a hard time turning miles of bike paths into reduction of VMT.  He said he couldn’t support any of them, not knowing what the results would be.  He added the background information was poor.


Weeldreyer asked in the modeling that LCOG performed, how much did the increased use of E-commerce and home-based business figure into the modeling to reduce VMT.


Schwetz responded it was an issue in regional modeling.  He said they don’t have a good sense of it but the closest they got would have been the household activity survey. He said it was a good issue as the model never really captured the affect of the E-commerce.  He added the amendments to the TPR allow expressing or reducing reliance on the auto that is in the plan in measures other than VMT per capita.  He said that VMT was not the only way to measure reduced reliance on the auto and not necessarily the best way.  He noted the jurisdictions could be provided with a correlation table that provides VMT effects.  He said the alliterative measures are meant to show that there are other ways to express that they are reducing the reliance on the auto.


Weeldreyer noted the regional investment board for the four county economic development region had $2.6 million to allocate for a variety of projects and some were around developing microbusiness and E-commerce that will have a direct impact on the region in terms of VMT being reduced.  She noted the biggest challenge is that the current zoning is not friendly toward home occupation types of E-commerce businesses.  She said as elected officials they have to work to champion the cause of home-based businesses so people could use information technology to generate new income for the region.


Kelly said he wanted to pursue the target numbers that had been set.  He noted the additional measures, beyond the original four that were added for discussion, Cortright would like to see adopted as part of the TPR compliance measures, not just measured locally.  He asked why, after all the things the state had said and what was said in public testimony, the staff recommendation was to stick with the original four measures.


Nathanson was interested in ten-minute transit service.  She said it was valuable that people would not consider using public transportation (specifically a bus) unless it is frequent enough to be convenient.  She added there are neighborhoods where the buses run only once an hour or half hour and people wouldn’t change their travel behavior for that.  She suggested making sure they are measuring the correct thing when they look at where the most effect is of TransPlan, of changing or reducing vehicle miles traveled.  She asked if it was best to measure percentage of households with access to ten-minute transit service or percent of households with 20 minutes, or with another type of frequency.


Kleger expressed his frustration with the State of Oregon that had given orders that are in conflict.  He said they stated the amount of vehicle miles traveled needed to be reduced and those funds being collected from automobiles could not be used for anything other than automobiles.  He added they are only coming up with cheap solutions because they don’t have the money to come up with anything else.  He said it is a bad situation they have to be in.


Hatfield echoed Kleger’s frustrations.  He said with regard to the September 14 letter from Bob Cortright, Portland, Salem, Eugene and Medford had all chosen the alternative modes; none had chosen 5% VMT for compliance.  He added that Portland is expecting a 2.4% increase in VMT, Salem is expecting a 3.7% increase, Eugene 0.2% increase and only Medford was expecting a decrease of 2.5%.  He said he was committed to maintaining the alternative modes because they have two ways of complying with the TPR: to accept a 5% VMT reduction or alternative modes.  He said both would comply with the TPR.  He suggested being selective in the measures they use and needing to continue monitoring VMT.


Sorenson said it was imperative for the economic prosperity and the livability of the community that they do everything not to go to the commission to roll it back.  He said his letter suggested pursuing the process of MPC and agreed with that.


Weeldreyer encouraged staff in the modeling, with Eugene and Springfield utilities taking fiber to every business and every home within the next 18 months, needed to be factored in.  She noted in each program that was funded for E-commerce or Micro Business, there were a number of outcomes as to how many people would get trained and would start businesses.


Bettman stated given the new information from LCDC and the public testimony, she asked if each jurisdiction should work with the adjustments to the alternative plan measures and instead of MPC, let each jurisdiction decide what they wanted to see in the plan measures.  She said the unresolved measures could then go to MPC.


Green supported what Bettman recommended.


Schwetz suggested that the individual agencies work on this and resolve any differences.  He said until that is done, they couldn’t develop a formal proposal to go to LCDC.  He said they were anxious to get to resolution on what they take to LCDC.


MOTION: to send this issue to MPC for resolution and subsequent submission back to the individual governing body.


Weeldreyer echoed the same motion for Lane County.


Sorenson stated this would be the same motion for each jurisdiction.


VOTE: The motion was passed.


Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting for the Lane County Board of Commissioner at 9:05 p.m.


Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting for the Eugene City Council at 9:05 p.m.


Mayor Sid Leiken adjourned the meeting for the Springfield City Council at 9:05 p.m.


Hillary Wylie adjourned the meeting for the LTD at 9: 05 p.m.



Melissa Zimmer

Recording Secretary                


go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices