Laserfiche WebLink
TransPlan, the City had to show conformance with the State Transportation Planning Rule (TPR). <br />The amendment moved the parkway into the plan and moved five other projects onto the futures <br />list. Mr. Kelly said that the parkway alone in the absence of those projects would increase the <br />daily vehicle hours of delay by about ten percent. He asked if that could be consistent with the <br />TPR. <br /> <br />Referring to page 10 of the findings for the TransPlan amendment, Mr. Kelly asked how the <br />council could adopt the ordinances when it was stated the findings were still underway and not <br />completed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly referred to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) amendment, and the claim that <br />mitigation would occur at the required ratios; he asked what the ratios required would be, and <br />how that matched with the total acres to be mitigated. He asked where the land to mitigate the <br />loss of wetlands would be found. Staff indicated that there were 43 acres available, and no other <br />sites had been identified at this time. He said that those sites needed to be identified and shown <br />in the findings to demonstrate consistency with the WEWP. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she was struck by the number of exceptions to the goals. She was most struck <br />by the statement in the findings that the project meets recreational needs by getting people to <br />recreation areas faster; she did not agree that met recreational needs. She said that the <br />statement related to Goal 13 that indicated the situation would deteriorate further in the absence <br />of the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) was not substantiated. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman called attention to a typographic error in Exhibit A, page 2, Finance Finding #2. She <br />said that the reference to $1.031 million in federal forest receipts should be $1.031 billion. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there were other issues or decisions "brewing" at other government levels <br />related to the WEP that the council needs to know about to avoid last-minute surprises. Ms. <br />Childs suggested that the question was best directed to those agencies. She was not aware of <br />any issues at this time. She said that one Springfield councilor had asked her whether ODOT <br />would hold the funding if the parkway was appealed. That was a decision of the Oregon <br />Transportation Commission (OTC) and ODOT staff did not know at this point. She noted that she <br />had requested information from ODOT regarding the proposed mitigation plan and a formal <br />statement that the northern alignment is the preferred alternative. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she heard there was meeting of the different jurisdictions and that several <br />issues were raised at that meeting. If so, she wanted to know sooner than later. Ms. Childs said <br />that LCOG convened a meeting of ODOT and the natural resource agencies, which she <br />attended. Ms. Bettman reiterated her concern about the potential of other outstanding issues, <br />and indicated that she would submit her question regarding last-minute issues in writing and <br />asked that staff from the various disciplines in attendance at the LCOG meeting with awareness <br />of any issues let the council know. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner had no questions or comments at this time. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked Ms. Childs to point her to where in the packet an explanation of the topic <br />was included. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson suggested that the decision that lay ahead would either be a technical or political <br />decision. It would be technical in that there were legal, financial, and policy-based issues the <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />