Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey reiterated the long history of the project and encouraged the council to be prepared <br />to make a decision on July 8, 2002. He did not accept the argument regarding potential legal <br />challenges, pointing out that the same could be said for the tree preservation ordinance or the <br />Land Use Code Update. He believed that all the councilors were prepared to vote now. He said <br />that he would vote for the parkway if needed. Regarding the potential of future OTIA funding, he <br />said that depend on the community's readiness to move forward with projects. He said that <br />Eugene had the reputation of never being ready to move forward. If the project at Beltline/I-5 was <br />not funded through OTIA, the community would lose out on millions in State funding and would <br />end up with only the relatively small Highway 126 project. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that the wetlands that would be impacted would be mitigated. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that no one was talking about the impact of nodal development on Royal <br />Avenue if the parkway was not built. Mayor Torrey said that everyone appeared to recognize that <br />there was a transportation problem in west Eugene. He feared that in the absence of the <br />parkway, motorists would avoid Highway 126 and choose to reach the community through its <br />residential neighborhood to the south or through the Royal Avenue node. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey called for another round of council comments. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly called the council's attention to testimony the council received that suggested that the <br />intersection at Beltline and the parkway would not work. He said that the SEIS indicated that the <br />intersection would be "beyond gridlock" in 2015. He believed that the amendment failed on that <br />basis alone. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor noted that federal and State law had been improved by the inclusion of monitoring <br />requirements for wetlands mitigation. In this case, ODOT would have responsibility for monitoring <br />the mitigated wetlands. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor acknowledged she was not an expert on wetlands. She said that she believed she had <br />sufficient information from conferences and trainings she attended to determine what experts to <br />listen to. She said that restoration was not the same as mitigation. <br /> <br />Speaking to Ms. Taylor, Mr. Farr said "Birnam Wood was indeed marching to Dunsinane"; it was <br />time to move forward. <br /> <br />Speaking to the mayor's comments, Ms. Bettman said that litigation was only an issue because it <br />would cause delays, which could jeopardize the funding now in place. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman agreed that the council should act because it had no time to identify all the problems <br />and inconsistencies in the amendments. She said that one of the largest issues that was yet to <br />be addressed was the number of automobiles that would be traveling on 6th and 7th avenues to <br />access 1-105 if the parkway was built. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked for information on the eastern gateway site and the success of mitigation <br />there. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey did not think the impact on 6th and 7th avenues would be as great as envisioned by <br />Ms. Bettman. He noted the impact that existed now at West 7th Avenue and Garfield Street. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />