Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Torrey reminded the council that ©D©T had said that if the City did not continue to support <br />the parkway, it would drop the funding. Regarding the revenue projections, he said that the City <br />did not know the money would be there, but if units IA and lB were built the City would have <br />accomplished most of what it wanted to accomplish. However, he felt the entire parkway was <br />needed. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said it appeared the council was reconsidering an action it had previously taken. City <br />Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the council had not adopted an ordinance or a resolution; the <br />council was being asked to reconsider a portion of what it decided before, in a different motion, in <br />the same way its previous decision revised what an earlier council had done. Because the council <br />was a new council, new action was appropriate. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart did not support the amendment, saying it was more appropriate for the MPC to make <br />recommendations about the project list. He said the council should consider the issue from a <br />broader spectrum; the 20-year plan was a liquid document that could be reconsidered in time. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the motion represented a new idea and it was incumbent upon the council to <br />forward alternatives because the draft TransPlan included only Phase IA of the parkway and the <br />motion moved three other phases into the 20-year plan. He agreed with Mr. Fart that the list was <br />fluid and would be addressed through updates, but when the updates occurred the community <br />would still need to satisfy the constraint requirement. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Kelly said that if the council was unable to <br />come with a recommendation for a list it would not be able to move forward. <br /> <br /> The amendment to the motion passed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Ms. Nathanson <br /> voting no. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman objected to the West Eugene Parkway because it did not meet her ultimate <br />objectives for Eugene as an appealing, sustainable, affordable community. She termed the <br />parkway the quintessential sprawl inducer that would encourage development at the edge of the <br />urban growth boundary and pay for it by sacrificing the quality of life as well as tax dollars. It <br />would facilitate longer and more automobile trips to development at the edge of the community, <br />where it was more expensive to provide services. Ms. Bettman said that the parkway would <br />bisect the wetlands and the city and make automobile travel the only viable option in some cases. <br />She thought the parkway would dwarf the City's other efforts related to encouraging bicycle use, <br />pedestrian travel, and nodal development. Ms. Bettman said that the community was throwing <br />$100 million each of the past decades to enlarge the road system to solve congestion. <br />Congestion was not solvable, and if the community continued to build roads it would destroy the <br />qualities that made people want to live in Eugene. Ms. Bettman asserted that research showed <br />that the safest and most cost-effective way to create urban mobility was a well-designed arterial <br />and collector grid system, supplemented by bicycle and transit facilities and nodal development. <br />She said that no matter how much money the community spent on building roads, Eugene would <br />still have congestion at 5 p.m. She thought the community had an opportunity to examine a <br />different way of doing things. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner concurred with Ms. Bettman's remarks. He also believed that the City should not <br />attempt to construct the eastern phase without intention to construct the entire parkway. He said <br />that if the council did not intend to build Phase 2 of the parkway, it should say so now. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council February 26, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />