CC Minutes - 06/19/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Ms. Childs acknowledged the many staff that worked on the amendments process, listed on page 2 of Response Document 2. She thanked the many people who submitted testimony during the process, and for the general civility of people throughout the process. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments. Ms. Bettman spoke to the amendments proposed to TransPlan. She said that if the money was in place for the parkway project, she did not see why other projects should be removed from TransPlan. She said the community should go forward with all the projects and let those who said the money was there "show us the money." Ms. Bettman said that the Development State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) indicated the project included a leg to Veneta. She said that given the more extensive magnitude of the project, she was beginning to agree that the project was regional in nature, and questioned why the vote did not include the entire county. She said that the eastern leg of the project was not included in the TransPlan amendments, and given th th the congestion that existed on 6 and 7 avenues, it seemed to her that soon after the process was completed the community would be looking at connecting the eastern terminus to 1-105, "blasting through the Whiteaker neighborhood." She said if TransPlan was to be amended, the entire project should be looked at comprehensively. Ms. Bettman cited outstanding issues yet to be resolved, including the revised findings, the mitigation plan for the wetlands, and the hydrology report. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the lack of a parkway corridor in Map 3 of the WEWP, Ms. Childs said that the parkway corridor was intentionally not added to the map during the last amendments process. At that time, there was a footnote to the adopting ordinance that stated those amendments were not going forward at that time because the preferred alternative for the Parkway had not yet been selected. At that time, the Eugene and Lane County planning commissions had reviewed the northern alignment corridor and had recommended approval of the application of the planned transportation corridor designation. However, the selection of the northern alignment as the preferred alternative had not been made at that time, making it seem as though the designation was premature; it was deferred to this process. Mr. Rayor determined from Ms. Childs that approval of the amendments would amend Map 3 with the designation. Mr. Rayor asked if the parkway was mentioned in the WEWP. Ms. Childs did not know if the parkway was called out. However, the projects in TransPlan when the WEWP was adopted that would not be carried forward for consideration as a planned transportation corridor were listed in a WEWP appendix. Ms. Childs added that Response Document 1 included a copy of the map from the 1992 WEWP that showed the southern alignment designated for development to allow construction of the parkway. Mr. Kelly asked if a copy of the map of the parkway route on display in the Council Chamber could be made available to the council. Mr. Reinhard said yes. Mr. Kelly said that four advisory bodies were involved in reviewing the amendments, and three of those bodies spent an hour or less on the issue; conversely, the Eugene Planning Commission spent "hours and hours" reviewing the details of the law, and subsequently had voted overwhelmingly that the amendments did not meet adopted laws or policies. He thought the Eugene commission's recommendation should be given more weight. Mr. Kelly advocated for making the findings available to the council and the public before July 4, 2002. He was concerned that there would be insufficient time for review. Ms. Childs believed the MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 3 Work Session