CCMinutes - 11/17/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

fund a public involvement process. He suggested the University of Oregon was also likely to be interested in the project, although he was unsure how it could be involved. Mr. Pap6 also concurred with Ms. Nathanson about the need to move quickly. Mr. Meisner suggested that the Lane Transit District should be involved as well. Mr. Pap6 concurred. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6, Mr. Boyatt said he did not perceive the temporary bridge as being a constraint to the inclusion of ramps on the replacement structure. Ms. Taylor asked if there were negative aspects to the project. Mr. Boyatt indicated he was approaching the project with an open mind as he believed that negative aspects would be identified through the land use and planning process. Ms. Taylor asked about public involvement. Mr. Boyatt said it was central to the process. Mr. Pirrie emphasized the collaborative nature of the public involvement process. Fatal flaws could lead to an alternative being discarded. Ms. Taylor asked if ODOT had heard any objections to the project. Mr. Boyatt said that ODOT had a letter from University of Oregon President David Frohnmeyer supporting the project. Ms. Taylor thought the City should know whether the public supported the project before a great deal of money was spent on technical work. Mayor Torrey expressed pleasure that the discussion was occurring. He agreed the bridge replacement was an opportunity that should be taken advantage of. He believed that the ramps needed to be considered now or they would be precluded in the future. Mayor Torrey solicited a second round of council comments and questions. Speaking to Ms. Taylor's comments, Ms. Bettman suggested that community support for the project would depend on how it looked and how it was designed. She believed there were advantages to the project, and believed that ODOT must think there was value to the concept as well or it would not elevate the project's priority. Ms. Bettman noted the lack of mention of Lane County in the materials before the council and suggested the County should be involved. Ms. Bettman said the community did not have the luxury of time as it related to the project. She referred to the letter from Mr. Lee, which indicated it would be necessary to amend the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) financially constrained project list to include the project and the cost. She noted that the RTP would be amended soon, and suggested that the system planning element be placed in the RTP to make it eligible for funding. Tom Schwetz of the Lane Council of Governments indicated that as new STP-U funds were allocated, some could be allocated to the process. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about whether the council should direct staff to prepare an amendment to the RTP to include the system planning for the project in the document, Mr. Schoening said that in his discussions with ODOT, it was his understanding that the commitment from the local jurisdictions was in the form of existing staff resources. Most of the work would be done by ODOT's consultant. He said all the STP-U funding available had been allocated for the planning period anticipated for the project. Mr. Kelly reiterated his earlier remarks about the importance of assembling a stakeholders group similar to that used for the Beltline/I-5 project. He said the way to achieve success was to involve everyone early in MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 17, 2004 Page 7 Work Session