CC Minutes - 04/26/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Regarding Ms. Nathanson's comments about multiple small crossings, Mr. Kelly suggested said he would normally agree, but felt that the Willamette River was such a significant natural feature that it eliminated the potential of such crossings. Ms. Nathanson said that it was ironic to her in that Mr. Meisner's unwillingness to examine the system of Willamette River crossings could likely result in even more traffic to the downtown core, and negatively affect inner city neighborhoods to a greater degree. She indicated her intent to vote against the motion and, if it failed, to offer a substitute motion based on her earlier remarks: Remove the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan project list and replace it with a future study to evaluate the regional system of Willamette River crossings, Mr. Lee said he visited Rasor Park with some of the neighbors and understood their concerns about livability. He pointed out, however, that his ward in the West University neighborhood was also in the center of the city and residents were was also being adversely affected by traffic. He said that people in his ward needed to have a say in the issue as well because of that effect. Mr. Lee said that the council should acknowledge that all residents in all wards were concerned about traffic in their neighborhoods. Mr. Lee did not perceive a significant difference between options B and D. He said that the issue was whether to have a study. He said that nothing would stop a future council from taking a different position. He asked staff to discuss the difference between the options. Ms. Childs suggested that Option D indicated a willingness sometime during the planning period to conduct a study. She confirmed that the study would have to be reviewed by the public and adopted by the council. Mr. Lee said he could support either option. Ms. Taylor said that there was more to the issue than traffic, including livability, the park, and the river front. She did not want to have a river crossing in the area known as Rasor Park by the neighborhood. She hoped the council could find a way to say that the area would be park land. Mr. Pap~ also found some irony in Mr. Meisner's position. He said that precluding future studies reduced the council's flexibility and he could not support Option B. Mr. Pap~ said that Option D addressed the entire river corridor, not just the area in the center of the city. Addressing Mr. Lee, he said that there was a difference between options. Option B said no study would occur. He noted Lane County's support for Option D, and pointed out that four adopting jurisdictions must concur on the policy. Mayor Torrey urged the council to find a way to include some text in the plan that did not preclude a river crossing to the east of the Ferry Street Bridge. He suggested that would help resolve any interjurisdictional issues that might arise. In response to Mr. Pap~ and Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner said that Option D called for a study focused on river crossings. He said that Ms. Nathanson's suggested motion assumed that a river crossing was a major panacea for the community's transportation problems, and he disagreed. Mr. Meisner said that the review of the transportation system in the future did not preclude a proposal for a new bridge crossing. Mr. Kelly reiterated that the plan would be subject to periodic review. He also noted that the plan currently contained other studies, and given limited funding he would prefer to fund those studies over what he termed "yet another study" of river crossing alternatives. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 2000 Page 8 Work Session