Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly voiced appreciation for the work completed to date on this endeavor and agreed there <br />was merit to the project. However, he spoke to the key issues, such as the impact on the river, <br />parklands, and affected neighborhoods, which he cautioned he would carefully observe. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked whether the council could give its sanction to partial interchanges rather than the <br />full interchanges, if it determined such action to be prudent. Ms. Gardner did not think that the <br />council would not be expected to provide that level of detail. She clarified that the council <br />needed only to ascertain whether it approved the continuation of the pursuit of the project, <br />including plan amendments. Mr. Boyatt, with noted concern, asked that the council not pre- <br />determine the refinement planning process. He said that it was his charge to take an objective <br />technical look at the plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that a full range of alternatives needed to be analyzed; however, he opined, it <br />was a full range of alternatives based on ODOT’s purpose and need. He noted that the council, <br />after review and discussion, from a City policy standpoint, could deem it prudent to condition the <br />purpose and need in some way. Mr. Suskind stated that the goal of ODOT was to enable the <br />council to ascertain whether the project was worthy of being included in the City’s plan but not to <br />prejudge the design or the characteristics of the project. He added that input on the purpose and <br />need was most appropriate and therefore a statement would be drafted to identify the issues which <br />need further focus in the development of alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly agreed that it would be premature at this stage in the process for the council to approve <br />certain alternatives. In response to a question from Mr. Kelly, Mr. Boyatt confirmed that a public <br />comment report would be provided to the City Council for its review. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz stated that she was not in favor of moving forward with this project. She explained that <br />safety issues elsewhere needed to be addressed; specifically, the Beltline, which was unsafe to <br />travel during peak times. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor stated he supported the project. He concurred with Ms. Ortiz that the Beltline was <br />unsafe but he considered the project under discussion to be a high priority. Mr. Pryor explained <br />that if Eugene was to become a metropolitan area of greater scope, it cannot have a major <br />interstate highway that did not have a functional interchange. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé stated it was his understanding that the federal government was responsible for the <br />freeways, the State of Oregon was responsible for connectivity around the state, and it was the <br />responsibility of the City and the County to resolve local transportation issues. Mr. Boyatt <br />concurred; however, he pointed out while the federal government had delegated ownership and <br />maintenance responsibilities for the federal interstate systems to the states, it had retained <br />approval authority through its regulations. He continued, saying that ODOT was responsible for <br />I-5 under the umbrella of the federal approval authority. Mr. Papé said that the council needed to <br />discuss the project in the context of how it improved the system on a local level and with the <br />State system. Mr. Boyatt remarked that the project should not have detrimental impact to <br />Beltline, Franklin Boulevard, I-5, or Hwy 99. <br /> <br />Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Ortiz’s comments that focus must be targeted to the Beltline. He <br />added that when debating this project, consideration should be given to the area’s needs over the <br />next 50 years. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />