CC Minutes - 11/14/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

design alternatives involving those connections have not yet been analyzed at this high level, but would be investigated in detail during refinement planning as alternative designs were compared and assessed. Mr. Boyatt remarked that the area Mr. Kelly referred to was also currently accessible by the Glenwood Interchange. Mr. Kelly pointed out that ODOT made it clear to the MPC in its discussions regarding a permanent bridge and a full interchange that they will be separate projects with two separate processes. Additionally, that ODOT, in its discussions, promised to build a permanent bridge to avoid precluding ramps. He said if additional background on the relationship between the bridge structure and the ramp structure was requested, Mr. Ray can provide that information. Mr. Papé asked where the potential “superfund” site was located. Mr. Boyatt replied it was the site of the old Goodpasture Dump. Mr. Papé pointed out that the site may have some toxic waste and clean-up required but it was not a superfund site. Ms. Gardner concurred that the site did not appear to be a superfund site. In response to another question from Mr. Papé, Mr. Boyatt replied that the challenge for the bridge designers was how to build a bridge that may not interfere with some future connection to Franklin Boulevard. With regard to the I-5 Beltline Interchange, Mr. Boyatt stated that ODOT had not scoped the community/stakeholder input; however, due to the interest in the project locally, a robust process would ensue, beginning with the December 8 public meeting. Mr. Papé pointed out that if access to and from the Laurel Valley was cut off, fire response and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) issues must be considered. Ms. Gardner replied that that level of impact to Laurel Valley had not been reviewed at this phase. Ms. Bettman pointed out that the original intent of ODOT was to get an indication from the local jurisdictions as to whether the interchange project was a priority so the process could be merged with the bridge process. Mr. Boyatt agreed that the original idea was such a concept; however, as time progressed, it was made clear to ODOT that such a plan would be difficult. He elaborated that the chief hurdles were funding and time lines and that the bridge funding, by legislative fiat, must be tapped by 2012 and therefore ODOT found it difficult to move forward with a $80 million replacement structure which would be funded on a bond time line. Additionally, attaching it when there were no physical or horizontal geometric needs specifically attaching it to the bridge was not deemed prudent. Ms. Bettman said she understood the reasons for such a determination; however, she pointed out that as the interchange project was now a separate and discrete project, utilizing a modified process was unnecessary as it could be pursued through a traditional process. She added that there was no rush to move forward as a time line did not need to be met and that the bridge design process, which was ahead of the interchange process, would need to have a design that would not preclude the on- and off-ramp. Mr. Boyatt countered that there was a possibility some of the construction phases could very well combine at a later time. Mr. Suskind stated that, speaking as a consultant for ODOT, his charge was to inform the policymakers and keep them in charge of the process and make a determination whether to move forward to a refinement plan, regional plan amendments, and finally into the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process. Ms. Taylor stated it was her understanding that the interchange project would be combined with the bridge project. Mayor Piercy reminded the council that MPC had been informed quite some time ago that constructing the bridge at the same time as the off-ramps would not be possible. Ms. Taylor then questioned who benefitted from the construction of the interchange. Ms. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 14, 2005 Page 7 Work Session