CC Minutes - 12/13/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

taken traffic off local streets in downtown, and the area was not signed to ensure that such traffic intrusions in neighborhoods did not occur. Because of that project, Mr. Meisner did not have a great deal of trust in the Oregon Department of Transportation. He did not think Ms. Bettman's motion was restrictive to alternate modes improvements but could result in the construction of more collector and arterial streets if the study found them needed. He noted his ward reached Seneca Street, and he would personally appreciate a better way to reach Beltline from the Big Y area. Mr. Meisner did not favor a straight line extension even if it did not run through the wetlands beyond Beltline. Mr. Farr said that if the council supported the motion, the West Eugene Parkway, which had been planned for 14 years and approved by 80 percent of the voters in 1986, was dead. He wanted the public to know that. He said the council appeared to be prepared to vote on the parkway without public input. He expressed the wish that Mayor Torrey could be present for the discussion. Mr. Farr, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to table the motion. The motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. PapS, and Mr. Farr voting yes. Mr. Farr reiterated that there had been a great deal of planning that had gone into the parkway project and the council as a group of seven were acting as if they knew better than the residents of Eugene. Ms. Childs noted that staff had provided the council with information about election logistics. Ms. Bettman said when the project was first proposed, the conventional wisdom was that road building eased congestion. She believed that the conventional wisdom had changed. Research proved that road building frequently caused more, not less, congestion. Ms. Bettman said that the residents of Eugene should ask themselves if they lived here 14 years ago when the vote was taken. She thought that would highlight how much had changed in 14 years. She said that fiscal realities were forcing the City Council into a hard decision. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, City Attorney Glenn Klein said that the City Manager could not initiate amendments to the plans mentioned in the motion; unless the council took affirmative action, the amendments would not be initiated. Ms. Bettman called the question. There was no second. Ms. Nathanson suggested that the adopting officials did not receive much testimony about the project from those who supported it because it was an approved project, was already in TransPlan, and was proposed to be built. She said that if the motion passed, she wanted to participate in discussions about other system improvements in the west Eugene area. However, if the motion passed and the City Council was counting on other system improvements to help solve traffic problems in west Eugene, what was the estimate of that cost? Where would the money come from? Ms. Nathanson assumed it would not come from the State. She asked how long it would take to identify money to come up with a solution. Traffic Engineer David Reinhard indicated he did not know, and estimated the majority of funding could come from systems development charges. Ms. Nathanson said that it appeared the motion could result in a long study process with no identified dollars for system improvements. She determined from staff that the City could not take the State money it had allocated to TransPlan and apply it to City system MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 4 Work Session