CC Minutes - 06/19/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

before it could sign off on a Record of Decision. Publication in the National Register could happen this fall. The field survey work requested could only be done in Spring 2003, and that work would require additional analysis. BLM had also indicated that it would like a public workshop on the results of that before it signed off on the Record of Division, possibly in Fall 2003. She said that in the case of the National Environmental Policy Act process, lawsuits rather than appeals would be filed. Mr. Meisner asked Ms. Childs her sense of whether the BLM policy waiver would be granted. Ms. Childs said she could not speculate. Mr. Meisner said he was concerned that regardless of what Eugene did, there was a westside transportation problem that would not be addressed by a parkway that would not be built for many years. He indicated that he intended to offer a motion to direct staff to cooperate with a private consulting firm to work on alternative transportation approaches to west Eugene. Mr. Farr thought the issues before the council were simple, and yet the council continued to throw obstacles in the way of the parkway's construction. The council was asking questions that had already been answered. He noted that a frequent argument against the parkway was that it would "blow a hole" through the urban growth boundary (UGB). He asked Ms. Childs to state what the parkway would do to the UBG. Ms. Childs said the parkway would do nothing to the UGB. Mr. Farr said that was what he thought. Ms. Taylor thanked staff for its work and the public for its testimony. She likened the parkway decision facing the council to the decision faced by Macbeth when he was deciding whether to use the opportunity to kill King Duncan, and said that just because the council could authorize the parkway did not mean it should be done. She enumerated Macbeth's arguments against the murder: Duncan was his king, his kinsman, his guest, and a virtuous man--also the consequences would be undesirable for the perpetrator and for the country. She said that the arguments against the parkway are that it would lead to sprawl, require exemptions to the land use goals, destroy wetlands, constitute a misuse of federal money used to purchase the wetlands, would lead to degradation of water quality and habitat, threaten endangered species, and would detract from an educational asset. She said the parkway would have an effect on generations to come. Ms. Taylor said that in Macbeth's case the other side was ambition; in the parkway's case it was profit for some. Ms. Nathanson said there would be impacts to the wetlands, and those impacts would be mitigated so the result was more continuous wetlands than those impacted. The wetlands would be bisected, but they were already bisected by the railroad corridor. She said that the parkway was a hard decision for the council. There was public opinion to be considered, two votes, and serious technical and environmental issues. She said a few years ago ©D©T, to reduce the impact on the wetlands, changed the proposed alignment from the south to the north. She said that resulted in the situation the community was in now. ©D©T had come up with a better plan than the original plan, but was now feeling the ramifications of the timing issues that existed in regard to the earlier WEWP amendments package. Ms. Nathanson said that rather than develop an alternative at this time, she preferred to initiate the parkway project and then commit to development of a set of strategies to address safety, congestion, and aesthetic concerns in west Eugene. Many ideas had been mentioned, and she thought the council should authorize work to go forward. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 5 Work Session