CC Minutes - 07/08/02 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Meisner said he was not happy with the process that led the council to this point. He did not think that councilors on either side of the issue considered the issues involved with an open mind. There was no new analysis before the council. He was discouraged that the council was relying on poor and out-of-date planning to make a decision. He was also discouraged by the lack of interest in alternative planning measures on the part of both the council and the community, as evinced by the community's rejection of the alternative measure. Councilor Meisner believed that the council's role in the process was minimal. There was no guarantee that the Oregon Department of Transportation (©D©T) would have the needed funding for the project or the needed federal waivers and fill permits to ensure the project went forward. He believed there was a guarantee of long-time litigation. There would be no near-term solution to the traffic problems that exist the west side of the city. ©D©T had made it clear that the parkway was not a solution for west side transportation problems. It was designed to connect Highway 126 to Interstate I-5. He reiterated that west side transportation improvements were needed, and he did not know where the funding was to come from if all the money was going to fund the parkway. Councilor Meisner did not interpret the ballot measure as advisory but as directive. He noted that his former Ward 7 had voted against the parkway, but his reconfigured ward, following redistricting, had not voted against the parkway. It was a different world. At this point in the process, Councilor Meisner said he tended to feel bound by the vote but did not expect to see the parkway constructed in his lifetime. Councilor Bettman believed the council had done what the voters directed it do by facilitating the land use and transportation planning process. She thought the process revealed that the proposed amendments were inconsistent with applicable policies and plans. Councilor Bettman did not think the TransPlan amendments sufficiently addressed the issue of putting more traffic on 6th and 7th avenues, and the fact the improvements, when modeled, gave neglible results. At the same time, other needed transportation projects would be postponed to ensure the parkway was constructed. Regarding the issue of the vote, Councilor Bettman believed that there was selective civic mindedness when it came to respecting the vote of the people. She said that former mayor Jeff Miller urged the council to respect the vote, but as City Councilor for Ward 6, on June 27, 1988, Mr. Miller was part of the council majority that voted to repeal the nuclear-free zone, which was also passed by the voters. Councilor Bettman acknowledged that the community was sharply divided on the issue, but she intended to oppose the motion. Councilor Rayor said he had read all the materials submitted to the council and walked a part of the route alignment. He had concluded that the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) was clear as to what it was trying to do in protecting wetland communities and native wet prairie through a connected series of wetlands. He continued to be disappointed with the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which was inadequate and out-of-date regarding to the natural environment issues involved. He thought the project the right project in the wrong place. Councilor Rayor said that the SEIS indicated that the wetlands would be fragmented by the modified alignment to an unacceptable degree. That was a serious issue for him. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 10 Regular Meeting