Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

parkway given the anticipated congestion. Mr. Corey indicated he would secure that information. Mr. Meisner said the council was talking about a ~huge" investment, and he was concerned that by building the parkway to a lesser standard the State would be investing in an %ven sooner" failure date. Ms. Taylor believed a public process was needed because the project was essentially a new one. She questioned whether the manager had the authority to sign the MOU given the changed nature of the project. Regardless of whether he had the authority, she continued to advocate for a public process. Mr. Kelly agreed with the mayor with regard to the City's partnership with the State. However, he believed the MOU would ultimately be ;;fodder for the recycling pile." There were many barriers facing the parkway. He noted that many alternatives to the parkway were rejected by ODOT because they did not meet ODOT's standards, but now its own proposal does not meet its standards, leading the Army Corps of Engineers to suggest that the process be reopened and other alternatives considered. Mr. Pap6 said the project was contentious no matter who paid for it. He continued to believe the project had community support and agreed with the mayor that Eugene needed to keep up the pressure on the State. With regard to the location of the intersections and the parkway design, Mr. Pap6 said that was not known when the vote occurred and he did not think they should be an issue now. He did not want Eugene to be the scapegoat if the project was killed. Ms. Bettman said the community voted on a highway, not a local street, and the MOU specifically called the parkway a local street that was a link between downtown and points west. The project described in TransPlan was also described as a State project meeting regional needs. She said the project was very different than that initially contemplated. Ms. Bettman said that ODOT rejected many alternatives for the same reason it was attempting to transfer the project and that concerned her because she had placed an alternative on the table that was rejected because it did not meet the State need and purpose for the project. The alternative used existing local streets that have excess capacity at the current time to create a network. Mayor Torrey suggested the council consider a future in which there was no parkway. Who would pay to address congestion east of the Beltline if ODOT was no longer involved? He said that was a reason for Eugene to %tay at the table" as long as possible. He said the manager and staff should be given every opportunity to make this work for Eugene. Mayor Torrey solicited a third round of council comments. Mr. Kelly cited additional barriers to the project, including the federal prohibition on roadways crossing land acquired by the BLM using Land and Water Conservation Funds, the fact the West Eugene Wetlands Plan amendments facilitating the parkway had not been adopted by the BLM, the fact the FHWA had not initiated the wetlands mitigation process, the fact the reevaluation report stated that West 11th Avenue at Bailey Hill was in failure by 2025 with or without the parkway, and the funding gap of $30 million beyond what the community had secured in revising TransPlan by eliminating other projects. Mr. Kelly did not believe the City had access management requirements, and asked what would happen once the parkway was a City street. What legal guarantee was there that every property owner along the route would not take driveway access to the parkway? Mr. Corey said that the City would have whatever guarantee it included in the IGA. Mr. Kelly questioned whether ODOT could impose State requirements on MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 22, 2004 Page 8 Work Session