CC Minutes - 09/08/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

thth infringe upon it; her preferred alternative was the 6/7 avenues alignment because it linked workers with their employment. Mr. Zelenka asked why the Amazon alignment was still being considered. Mr. Schwetz said that alternative arose during the scoping process and LTD felt that there could be some potential funding opportunities. He said there were examples in the Portland area of transit running along similar waterways. He reiterated that the environmental process was intended to scrutinize all alternatives. Mr. Evans added that the only th alternative removed from consideration was the residential portion of West 11 Avenue, which the LTD board felt was not feasible for the district, the neighborhood or the community. Mr. Clark asked if there were representatives of the 3RT group on the stakeholder committee. Mr. Schwetz said there was one 3RT representative on the committee. Mr. Clark asked what impact LTD’s funding challenges would have on its ongoing planning activities and eventual implementation. Mr. Evans said the EmX planning process would not be affected, but federal funding would be required for the eventual construction of the project. Mr. Clark asked if LTD anticipated a need for increased operational funding. Mr. Evans said LTD was already faced with the need for additional operating funds because of increased ridership and increased fuel prices and there would be some restructuring of the system to address that problem. He stressed that funding for operations was separate from planning and construction activities. Mr. Schwetz added that State funding would be sought for the match portion of the capital project. He said the operational efficiencies that were realized through EmX actually helped the district’s operational needs. Mr. Pryor said he appreciated participating in the process. He said the corridor was divided into three segments and the middle segment—Garfield Street to Bailey Hill Road—essentially defined the project. He said the Amazon alignment was included in the process because each option had to be considered until it was no longer viable. He found the discussion of alternatives to be very informative and helpful. Ms. Taylor commented that it was a waste of time and money to look at the Amazon channel if it was not supported by most people. Mr. Schwetz said that an alternative could not be eliminated until all of the information was available. Ms. Taylor asked if the council could determine that an alternative should not be pursued. Mr. Schwetz said it was more effective to wait until all the information had been obtained. Ms. Ortiz commended the community design workshops. She did not feel that any option should be eliminated at this point in the process. She pointed out that there were many businesses that were located right next to the Amazon channel in that area. She doubted that all of them were in compliance with current City codes regarding stormwater and she was not certain that the community would refuse to support an Amazon alignment. Mr. Poling thanked LTD staff for the public involvement process and agreed with Ms. Ortiz that the more options that were considered the better the outcome of the process would be. He would not be willing to eliminate an alternative until he had all of the information from the process. Ms. Bettman asked what the federal regulations required in terms of considering options. She asked if it thth would be permissible under the federal process to express a preference for the 6/7 avenues alignment and then focus on alternatives related to that alignment. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said he would need to research that question, but it was clear that the process needed to proceed with all the options.