Laserfiche WebLink
discovery of wetlands in the area had led to the development of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan <br />and the mitigation bank, which was an attempt to balance the need for industrial lands with <br />protection of important wetlands. Mr. Pap~ said that the council would be breaking a promise <br />with the voters and violating its planning for industrial lands by removing the parkway from the <br />project list. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey opposed the motion. He said that before the council made such a decision, he <br />wanted to know more about the parkway's status, the environmental impact issues associated <br />with the project, the final route, and its impacts on traffic congestion. He said that ©D©T would <br />be happy to reprogram the funding associated with the parkway, and it would not come back to <br />Eugene. Mayor Torrey did not feel comfortable making a final decision without the presence of <br />Ms. Nathanson, whose ward the planned parkway was in. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that building only the middle segment would not be helping the remainder of the <br />industrial properties in West Eugene. He pointed out that the council's decision could not be final <br />because TransPlan was multi-jurisdictional. Passage of the motion would merely lead to further <br />discussion at the joint elected officials' work session. He said that not to pass the motion <br />ensured that discussion did not happen, and implied the first phase would be built. He <br />suggested that the motion be amended to delete the reference to the parkway and replacing it <br />with continued staff study to explore alternative mechanisms for better traffic relief on West 11th <br />Avenue, further staff study of how to fund a fully functional project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Mr. Meisner, to amend the motion to substitute <br /> a staff study of ways to substantially provide traffic relief along West 11th <br /> Avenue for the parkway project. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr opposed the amendment. He said the project in question was funded by ©D©T and <br />Eugene did not receive a fair share of State transportation funding now. He said that ©D©T <br />would reprogram the money if the project was eliminated, and there would be no funding to <br />relieve traffic on West 11th Avenue efficiently. He said that the project as proposed would <br />accommodate commuter traffic as well as provide day-long relief to congestion. Mr. Fart said <br />that there was already a problematic mix of semi-trucks and passenger vehicles on West 11th <br />Avenue, and the parkway would help reduce that mix. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the amendment to the motion. He did not think that the solution to west <br />Eugene's traffic problems was to build a 5th/6th connector to beyond Beltline. He disagreed with <br />Mr. Fart that the parkway would provide a separation of passenger and truck traffic. It would <br />merely add additional separate capacity and exacerbate the existing problem. Mr. Meisner was <br />not persuaded by arguments regarding the loss of ©D©T funding, adding that he did not "accept <br />money for a bad purpose." He thought that 6th/7th avenues could be connected to West 11th <br />Avenue much closer in without the loss of substantial industrial or resource land. <br /> <br /> The motion to amend passed, 4:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap~ moved to table the main motion, seconded by Mr. Lee. The motion <br /> failed, 4:2; Mr. Lee and Mr. Pap~ voting yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr opposed the main motion because so much work had gone into the parkway and he <br /> th <br />believed it would serve to alleviate the traffic problems that exist on West 11 Avenue. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 7, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />