CC Minutes - 06/19/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

findings could be adopted as they stood, but that some revisions should be made since the issue will be litigated. Mr. Kelly suggested the findings be placed on the City's Web site and a press release issued. Ms. Childs concurred. Mr. Kelly said that given the length of the process, he was disturbed the public did not have answers to the "simplest" of questions, for example, when will the parkway be done? Assuming things move forward smoothly, Response Document 2 indicated construction would commence in 2005, and end in 2020. He did not think the voters would be happy with that answer. Mr. Pap8 asked Ms. Childs what changes she recommended to the findings. Ms. Childs said that additional policies in the WEWP and the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) were being reviewed by legal counsel as a result of the questions from the elected officials. She did not anticipate wholesale revisions to the ordinances before the council. Mr. Pap8 asked staff to speak to the issue of funding. He said he understood there was potential for more funding as a result of the two Oregon Transportation Investment Acts (OTIA), and asked how funding would be incorporated into TransPlan. Ms. Childs said that would occur through the three-year TransPlan update process. Mr. Carlson noted that the State stipulated that only those projects ready to proceed qualified for OTIA money, and the only local project to qualify was the I- 5/Beltline project. Receipt of the money for that project merely changed the financial constraint calculation in TransPlan, so the timing of other projects would not be affected by the three-year update. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Carlson said that staff had assumed the OTIA I moneys in developing the current proposal for TransPlan amendments. In regarding to the question of when the WEP would be built, Mr. Carlson said that during the triennial review of TransPlan, the elected officials would review what had been accomplished and what the financial constraint analysis indicated. If new money was available and projects had been completed, the elected officials could consider bringing some of the projects on the Futures List onto the financially constrained list. Those projects would then compete with the other parkway phases for funding. Mr. Carlson said the funding for the various projects on the project list was competitive on both the State and federal level and the completion of the parkway depended on when funding became available. Mr. Pap8 clarified that the only parkway phase in the STIP was Unit I-A. He asked if it had wetland implications. Ms. Childs said that there were about five acres impacted, most of which was already designated for development in the WEWP. Mr. Pap8 determined from Emily Jerome of the City Attorney's Office that she believed the amendments before the council were legally defensible. Ms. Jerome wanted to reserve the opportunity to make changes to the findings in response to the testimony and adopting official questions, if needed. Mr. Meisner believed the parkway would continue to be litigated into the far future. He asked if Ms. Childs felt comfortable with the findings as they were currently drafted with respect to the land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Ms. Childs said yes; LUBA would consider the evidence in the record and the findings. She thought there was substantial evidence in the record that would be easier for LUBA to find if the City provided findings for some of the other policies. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Childs her sense of when the SEIS would be complete. Ms. Childs said that the BLM had, in correspondence with ODOT, indicated a number of steps it wanted to see MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 4 Work Session