Laserfiche WebLink
and clean-up required but it was not a superfund site. Ms. Gardner concurred that the site did not <br />appear to be a superfund site. In response to another question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Boyatt replied <br />that the challenge for the bridge designers was how to build a bridge that may not interfere with <br />some future connection to Franklin Boulevard. With regard to the I-5 Beltline Interchange, Mr. <br />Boyatt stated that ODOT had not scoped the community/stakeholder input; however, due to the <br />interest in the project locally, a robust process would ensue, beginning with the December 8 <br />public meeting. Mr. Papé pointed out that if access to and from the Laurel Valley was cut off, <br />fire response and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) issues must be considered. Ms. Gardner <br />replied that that level of impact to Laurel Valley had not been reviewed at this phase. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman pointed out that the original intent of ODOT was to get an indication from the local <br />jurisdictions as to whether the interchange project was a priority so the process could be merged <br />with the bridge process. Mr. Boyatt agreed that the original idea was such a concept; however, as <br />time progressed, it was made clear to ODOT that such a plan would be difficult. He elaborated <br />that the chief hurdles were funding and time lines and that the bridge funding, by legislative fiat, <br />must be tapped by 2012 and therefore ODOT found it difficult to move forward with a $80 <br />million replacement structure which would be funded on a bond time line. Additionally, <br />attaching it when there were no physical or horizontal geometric needs specifically attaching it to <br />the bridge was not deemed prudent. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she understood the reasons for such a determination; however, she pointed out <br />that as the interchange project was now a separate and discrete project, utilizing a modified <br />process was unnecessary as it could be pursued through a traditional process. She added that <br />there was no rush to move forward as a time line did not need to be met and that the bridge design <br />process, which was ahead of the interchange process, would need to have a design that would not <br />preclude the on- and off-ramp. Mr. Boyatt countered that there was a possibility some of the <br />construction phases could very well combine at a later time. Mr. Suskind stated that, speaking as <br />a consultant for ODOT, his charge was to inform the policymakers and keep them in charge of <br />the process and make a determination whether to move forward to a refinement plan, regional <br />plan amendments, and finally into the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor stated it was her understanding that the interchange project would be combined with <br />the bridge project. Mayor Piercy reminded the council that MPC had been informed quite some <br />time ago that constructing the bridge at the same time as the off-ramps would not be possible. <br />Ms. Taylor then questioned who benefitted from the construction of the interchange. Ms. <br />Gardner replied that the question put forth by Ms. Taylor would be answered through the public <br />process, followed by further review within the elected official domain. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly recognized that some of the construction could align, regardless if there were two <br />NEPA processes. In terms of benefits, he shared that a number of his constituents voiced support <br />for the project, as it would improve central city access for constituents and visitors. In terms of <br />process, Mr. Kelly pointed to the Beltline/I-5 process and opined that it did in fact produce good <br />efforts; however, the challenge was that most of the work took place in the middle of the NEPA <br />process. With the current process, he appreciated that there was a determination to provide for <br />more dialogue and stakeholder discussion and a series of “thumbs up/thumbs down” exercises <br />with elected officials prior to any allocation of large sums of money. <br /> <br />Mr. Boyatt thanked Mr. Kelly for the reminder that planning prior to the NEPA process was most <br />prudent; in fact, essential. <br /> <br />In conclusion, Mayor Piercy commented that attention must be paid to purpose and needs as those <br />components guide processes thereafter. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />