CC Minutes - 06/19/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mayor Torrey reviewed the United Front's long-time efforts to secure federal funding for the acquisition of wetlands in west Eugene for the express purpose of forwarding the goal of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to balance development with protection. He said that the WEWP was a national model. Mayor Torrey said that on the most recent United Front trip, the City was told that further acquisition funding was unlikely to be available because the BLM had other western priorities. From the beginning, the funding for acquisition of wetlands was predicated on the need for protection of the environment and the need to continue to develop in west Eugene. He noted that throughout the time the City had been seeking money for land acquisition, the federal government was made aware of the pending construction of the parkway. Mayor Torrey noted that representatives of the State of Wisconsin intend to introduce a bill in Congress to address some of the questions that Mr. Kelly raised about project phasing. Mayor Torrey solicited another round of council comments. Mr. Kelly questioned whether ©TIA II would provide any additional money given that the I- 5/Beltline project was likely to cost much more than it was budgeted for now. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Childs if the findings could be in legislative format. Ms. Childs said yes. Mr. Kelly said Ms. Childs' response regarding the parkway's impact on the UGB was technically correct, but the findings stated it could facilitate development and encourage rural development. He believed that the existence of the parkway was likely to contribute to sprawl, leading to expansion of the UGB.. Mr. Kelly acknowledged the railroad corridor adjacent to the proposed alignment, but said there was a great deal of difference between a train corridor with two trains daily and a highway carrying thousands of automobiles. Mr. Kelly said that the council had been told several times that the parkway had been assumed in land use planning for several years, and he had asked why that was not included in the findings of major land use decisions that had happened. The staff response in Response Document 2 was that the Parkway was an implicit factor in many decisions. He did not think that was sufficient for land use findings, and said he wished he had a better sense of how the parkway was assumed in land use planning. He acknowledged that staff had indicated the project was specifically mentioned in one set of findings. Mr. Fart asked where the vehicles that would use the parkway in the future would go if it was not to be built. He referred to the map and pointed out units 2-A and 2-B, and the location of the railroad. He said there was a barrier in place with the railroad already, and he did not perceive the parkway to have the major impact people stated. Regarding the sprawl of concern to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Fart did not see it happening. He was more concerned about sprawl in other areas of the community. Mr. Rayor said that since the inception of the project, there had been growing public awareness of the environmental issues involved. The parkway alignment had been moved in reaction to those issues. He believed the parkway was a good project in the wrong place. It had been in trouble from the beginning because it was conceived before the no national net loss policy regarding wetlands was established. He noted the EPA's support for a optimized alignment, which he also MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 6 Work Session