CC Minutes - 02/20/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

adopted in 1991. He said that he was not sure how that coordinated with the time line for project approval. Mr. Carlson said that for several years the expectation had been that the project would be under construction prior to the adoption of the TransPlan update. The entire West Eugene Parkway is in the existing TransPlan. Part of the problem was timing. He said that had the project been finalized a couple of years ago, it would have been accepted under the existing plan. He noted that the project has been "ready" several times, although there has never been a final SETS since the 1990 ETS. Mr. Sorenson asked if the segmentation of the project required an overall SEIS. Mr. Pirrie said that the entire project was included in the ETS and therefore each segment was included, but a SETS would be required for any one segment of the project. Mr. Sorenson asked when the SEIS would be done. Mr. Carlson said that the completion of the SEIS was dependent on the conditions outlined by the December ODOT letter. If the three conditions are not accepted, then the existing SEIS could not be finalized. There would have to be a new SEIS, which would initiate a new round of environmental studies for other proposals. Mr. Sorenson noted the charter amendment requires a vote, and asked if the alteration of the proposed route of the parkway intersects or conflicts with the public vote requirement in the City of Eugene Charter. Mr. Carlson said that the legal opinion to date has been that the route that was approved by the voters in 1986 could accommodate minor changes. The question of whether a new vote is required for a new project has not been addressed. Mr. Sorenson asked Mr. Pirrie to rate or describe the level of conflict between the BLM and ODOT on this project. Mr. Pirrie said that BLM is taking active management efforts to create a high quality wetlands in the area in the vicinity of the Unit 2 segment. Currently, there has been a collaborative effort to make this a national model for programs. He said that the two agencies have been working together, and could not describe a level of conflict. Mr. Sorenson asked for an explanation of a national waiver. Mr. Pirrie said that land purchased with Land and Water Conservation Funds cannot be used for purposes other than what was intended by Congress when establishing the fund without a waiver from the Washington office of BLM. Mr. Carlson added that the lands purchased with Land and Water Conservation Funds cannot be transferred to another owner, but must be kept in perpetuity, although other uses can be allowed with the granting of the waiver. Mr. Sorenson asked when the WEWP went in to effect and if the plan affected the project. Mr. Carlson said that the plan adopted in 1992 included a provision for the approved aligmnent of the parkway, which at that time was south of the railroad tracks. With the change to the northern aligmnent, that provision was eliminated and the plan must be amended to allow the parkway to be located in the northern aligmnent. Mr. Green emphasized the importance of the local transportation partnership. He believed it was important to keep the funding in the region and indicated he would support Mayor Torrey's proposal regarding the parkway. He said that he was concerned about the discussion of the conflict between the wetlands and parkway and asked why development and wetlands cannot coexist. He said that if there was a way to keep the $17 million in the region, that should be done, although he acknowledged the difficulty of doing so. Mr. Green said it was difficult for him to argue at Region 2 that funds should remain in this area when other areas have projects ready to go, and do not have the conflict that has emerged locally. He urged the involved MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 7 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members