Item 3 - Capital Improv.Program - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..... Original Message ..... From: Kevin Matthews [mailto:matthews@artifice.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 4:59 PM To: Susan Muir Subject: Comments on Draft CIP Eugene Planning Commission c/o Susan Muir, Planning Director City of Eugene 2005.0105 Dear Eugene Planning Commissioners, Thank you for the extension of time for submission of written testimony regarding the City of Eugene Draft FY2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . Unfortunately the unexpected event of an emergency MPC meeting to consider the 2005-2007 MTIP demanded a large amount of vacation-time political energy, and we are still working through questions and research regarding the 188 page CIP document. Nonetheless, here are a few more thoughts I hope you may consider. "Projects with identified funding in this CIP total approximately $156 million. Nearly $54 million of anticipated spending on Transportation projects represents the largest portion of the CIP, including close to $12 million to construct an underpass on Patterson Street." As far as I know, neither you nor anyone else has seen even a conceptual plan for this 800-foot-plus "Patterson Trench". It has not been through any kind of reasonable public review and comment. Its construction would fly (or thud) in the face of every existing community plan and goal for the priceless downtown riverfront area. And the Patterson Trench would serve a project whose fate is uncertain at best, in light of the recent court findings in Friends of Eugene v. City of Eugene, which denied and remanded sweeping attempts to add hospital uses to many zones where prohibited by the Metro Plan. Latest rumors suggest the Patterson Trench would force demolition of the historic steam plant building, an elegant art deco building and the only significant remaining symbol of industry in the rapidly-sanitizing cannery district. Relocation of the steam plant itself (perhaps 10-12 million dollars), and the major substation adjacent (perhaps a couple of million more), would highlight skyrocketing costs of a really inadequately vetted project. While almost any acquisition to truly protect key riparian areas would be favorably recieved, is it really appropriate to use limited storm-water funds as part of the subsidy for the Triad hospital deal? The sources of funds for the ill-conceived public safety and city hall projects should be described and accounted for in more detail. Have you considered the potential alternative applications of those funds to other community priorities? Even if paid for by outside sources, airport road building has environmental impacts and may promote sprawl. Are all the airport expansion projects really appropriate in the current economic climate? L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050228\S0502283.doc