Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CC Minutes - 07/08/02 Meeting
MINUTES Eugene City Council Regular Meeting McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall July 8, 2002 8p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. 1.Public Forum Mayor Torrey reviewed the rules of the Public Forum. Bruce Miller, PC) Box 50968, Eugene, said he had recently been involved in a personal evaluation of the University of Oregon as it related to the community, and believed that the University represented an inaccessible resource for local government. Julie Whitmore, 2670 Beaumount Drive, thanked the council for considering a City levy for schools. She acknowledged that it was not an ideal solution but no one had been able to persuade the State legislature to develop a long-term solution for the schools. She did not think a State solution was forthcoming, and in the meantime students suffered. Ms. Whitmore said that once programs were eliminated, they were difficult to restore. She spoke of the loss of music programs in local schools and anticipated that in the coming year music programs would be eliminated entirely because of budget cuts. Ms. Whitmore thought a local approach was far- sighted and critical to the success of local schools. She offered to work on behalf of such a measure. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Homebuilders Association of Lane County, thanked Councilor Nathanson for wishing to include homebuilders in a discussion of fire- resistant building materials. Regarding staffing reductions at the Permit and Information Center (PIC), she reminded the councilors that the Budget Committee declined to fund the full cost of providing public information. She said that those who wanted to raise fees were forgetting that they were asking the development community to pay those costs. Regarding the cost of predevelopment conferences, she pointed out that those were in another budget altogether. She said that the cut must be high-profile, and must affect the general public because it was a cut affecting the General Fund. Mark Rabinowitz, 28549 Sutherlin Road, suggested that the elected officials who stood to benefit from council decisions should recuse themselves. He stated he was against new taxes and wanted growth to pay its own way. He said that the City should not subsidize land speculation. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 1 Regular Meeting He wanted government to spend tax dollars efficiently in a time of declining revenues. He wanted the City to support existing schools and businesses rather than subsidize new schools and businesses. Nick Urhausen, 2858 Warren Street, noted his involvement in the election to place the flag on Skinner Butte Park, and said that if the measure had not passed he would not have whined about the fact it might have passed with a few more votes. He likened the situation to the vote on the West Eugene Parkway. He acknowledged that the vote was close but said the fact of the majority was not insignificant for that reason. Mr. Urhausen urged the council to abide by the election results. Mayor Torrey closed the public forum and called for council comments. Councilor Kelly thanked those offering comments regarding the proposed school-related measure, and said he hoped the City could move ahead with the measure. Councilor Meisner said he recently discussed the proposed school measure with a member of the Pendleton School Board, who indicated that city took a similar approach but the proposed measure had failed dismally because of the question of regional equity. City voters were being asked to support a much larger district. He anticipated he would receive information about the measure from the school board member, and indicated he would share that with the council and staff. Councilor Bettman thanked those offering comment. She agreed with the remarks of Ms. Whitmore and said she hoped the council could offer the voters a measure they could support. She wanted the measure to be instruction-related or supportive of actual teaching, such as funding school counselors or school nurses. She said she would support a measure that mirrored those interests. Speaking to Ms. Cuellar's remarks, Councilor Bettman said the cost for general information was a "moving target," and the cost had increased to $400,000 from an initial $300,000. Subsequently, $325,000 was allocated to the PIC, and the Planning and Development Department made the decision regarding how to allocate the funding. She characterized the study done by the department regarding the provision of information as perfunctory, and called for a more comprehensive study of other services provided by the department, as it was her perception that the City was providing a lot of free services to the development community. 2.Ceremonial Matters Mayor Torrey recognized Councilor Rayor for receiving the Engineer of the Year Award from the Professional Engineers of Oregon. He noted that among other things, Councilor Rayor was recognized as the engineer of record for the DeFazio Bicycle Bridge. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 2 Regular Meeting 3.Consent Calendar A. Approval of Council Minutes May 22, 2002, Work Session May 29, 2002, Work Session June 10, 2002, Work Session June 10, 2002, City Council Meeting B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda C. Approval of Resolution 4726, Approving the Charter and Agreement of the Lane Council of Governments D. Approval of Resolution 4727 Delegating Authority to Declare Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Councilor Kelly pulled Item A. He offered corrections to the minutes of May 29, noting Councilor Rayor was incorrectly listed as both present and absent; he was absent. Regarding the work session minutes of June 10, he asked that the reference to the "initial levy" in the last paragraph on page 3 be changed to the "initial youth levy." He also asked that the reference to distinctive judicial process in paragraph 8 on page 6 of the same minutes be changed to "distinctive judicial evaluation process." Councilor Bettman also pulled Item A and asked that Item C be pulled. Councilor Bettman noted that "follow" was misspelled "following" in paragraph 1 of page 6 of the work session minutes of May 29. She also asked that paragraph 8 on page 2 of the May 29 minutes be revised to read (italicized text added; struck text deleted): "...could be listed as a minor change on a separate ballot as a separate measure." Referring to the June 10 work session minutes, Councilor Bettman asked that the reference to "school councilors" in paragraph 3 on page 4 be changed to "school counselors." She also asked that the second sentence in paragraph 6 on page '12 be replaced with the following: "Could it be interpreted as a strong preference for an internal candidate?" Mayor Torrey determined that there were no objections to the changes offered by Councilor Kelly or Councilor Bettman. Roll call vote; the motion, with the exception of Item C, passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Bettman asked that Item C, a resolution approving the charter and agreement of the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG), be tabled pending a council work session on issues related to LCOG. She thought a work session would help to address some issues of concern that had been raised by constituents to her over the years. She termed LCOG a "quasi-governmental agency" that put an insulating layer between the elected representatives of a jurisdiction and the expenditure of funds. She said it created an extra level of bureaucracy, which decreased accountability. Councilor Bettman pointed out that the council was not receiving regular reports from its representatives to the LCOG Board regarding the decisions the board made. She cited MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 3 Regular Meeting as issues of concern that the organization competed with private planning organizations and that reports and publications issued by LCOG were unsigned. Mayor Torrey determined from City Manager pro tern Jim Carlson that the agenda item was not time-sensitive. Councilor Kelly agreed that the item was not time-sensitive. He thought that LC©G did considerable good work but he had heard the same concerns that Councilor Bettman heard from her constituents. He did not recall meeting with the LC©G director as a council, and thought that such a meeting would be useful. Councilor Pap~ asked if there were any changes contemplated in the resolution before the council. Mr. Carlson said that no changes were being proposed. He said that staff could find no evidence the resolution had been adopted by the City Council in the past. Councilor Taylor also wanted to have a work session on LCOG, in particular regarding its financing and functions and its relationship with the City. Councilor Nathanson said she found LC©G's annual reports to be very useful. She was not interested in delaying approval of the resolution pending a work session as the council's time was at a premium. She said that unless the outcome was to generate a sweeping change and persuade the other members to support the change, the work session would be merely interesting. She preferred to take action, and said that interested councilors could join to request a work session. Councilor Rayor said that LCOG did not fit the model used by the remainder of the state, particularly in how it addressed transportation funding issues. He questioned whether the local area was being left behind because it did not have a Area Commission on Transportation. He said that generally, counties shared a COG. Councilor Fart said that in the past, he had represented the Bethel School Board on the LCOG Board. He did not believe a work session was warranted on the basis of the information he had. Councilor Bettman reiterated her interest in a work session. She said she did not know enough know to support the resolution. Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to table the resolution. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Kelly, Bettman, Taylor, and Rayor voting yes; councilors Nathanson, Meisner, PapS, and Farr voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote against the motion, which was defeated by a final vote of 5:4. Councilor Pap~ questioned whether the City was actually a member of the organization if it had never adopted the resolution. Mayor Torrey suggested the council could both approve the resolution and have a work session, given that four councilors appeared to be interested. George Kloeppel, LC©G Executive Director, said the initiation for requests of the copies of the adopting resolution came from legal counsel, and it was considered a housekeeping matter at that MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 4 Regular Meeting time. The request was made of all 25 member governments, and half had responded with a copy of the original resolution or by adopting the resolution. He said that he could not speak to the legal status of Eugene's membership, but noted that LCOG considered the City a member since 1947, when it helped found the predecessor organization to LCOG. Regarding the potential of a work session, Mr. Kloeppel indicated willingness to participate in such a work session and to provide information as requested. City Attorney Jerome Lidz said that staff would have to do more work to determine whether the resolution was a new document or was merely misplaced. He said that the City had participated as a member for over 30 years. Councilor Pap8 thought the language in Section 2 was clear regarding the need to adopt the resolution, and continued to suggest that the City was not a member. Councilor Nathanson said that the City benefitted from LCOG. She wanted to increase the assistance the City received from LCOG. She hoped to approve the resolution sooner than later. She called on the council to adopt the resolution. Councilor Kelly thanked Mr. Kloeppel for his response. He did not think approving the charter needed to be delayed, but wanted to have a work session scheduled. He recommended that Mr. Kloeppel solicit concerns from the councilors before that time. Councilor Farr said that one of the reasons the council was pressed for time was because of discussions like this. He said that the City benefitted from LCOG and had a good working relationship with LCOG. He saw no reason to delay action, and did not object to a work session, although he thought one-on-one conversations with LCOG staff more appropriate. Councilor Bettman wanted to be able to support the resolution but did not feel comfortable doing so now as "there were some questions out there." Councilor Bettman, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to postpone the item until a work session could be scheduled within 90 days. Councilor Pap8 suggested that the City would be acting illegally if it continued to contribute to the organization in the meantime. Mayor Torrey indicated he would vote to support the motion in the event of a tie. Councilor Pap8 reiterated his concern that the City was not a member. Mr. Lidz said that the City and LCOG were operating under the assumption that the City was a member; he suggested that it could be argued that assumption was undermined by the City's failure to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie, councilors Kelly, Taylor, Bettman, and Rayor voting yes; councilors Nathanson, Farr, Meisner, and Pap8 voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion and the motion passed on a final vote of 5:4. 4.PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Solid Fuel Space Heating Devices and Amending Sections 6.250 and 6.255 of the Eugene Code, 1971 MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 5 Regular Meeting City Manager Carlson reminded the council that it held two work sessions on the topic. Brian Jennisen, Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) Director, was present to answer questions. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing. There being no requests from the public to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Kelly asked if a "green" and "yellow" advisory needed to be defined to support enforcement actions. Mr. Jennisen reported that LRAPA had provided definitions of green and yellow advisory to City staff. He said that an exemption for natural gas log lighters was also included to address the concerns previously raised by Councilor Pap~. Mayor Torrey indicated action on the item was scheduled for July 22, 2002. 5.ACTION: Approval of Minutes, Findings, and Recommendations from the Hearings Official and Adoption of an Ordinance Levying Assessments for Paving, Curbs, and Gutters, Sidewalks, and Storm Sewers on Ayres Road from Delta Highway to Gilham Road and on Gilham Road from Ayres Road to Honeywood Street; and Providing an Effective Date (CONTRACT 2001-26) (JOB #3367) Mayor Torrey recused himself from the item because of his residence near Ayres Road. Council President Kelly assumed the chair. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved to approve the minutes, findings, and recommendations of the Hearings Official of July 1, 2002. Councilor Pap~, seconded by Councilor Fart, moved to continue the item to September 223, 2002. Councilor Pap~ said that because the item was contentious and he believed that the issues involved could be resolved, he proposed delaying action. He understood from neighbors that the road was not built as designed and there was considerable puddling on the roadway. Councilor Bettman said that the agenda item summary indicated staff wished to move forward with the project because the interest on the project would accrue to the property owners. She asked if postponement would affect the interest, and if the property owners would expect the City to pay the interest if the council postponed the project. Paul Klope of the Public Works Engineering Division said that interest for the project funding was accruing at the rate of approximately $2,000 monthly, and that was allocated to the City and involved property owners on a pro rated basis. The property owners would pay a quarter of the interest costs based on the proportion of the assessment costs of approximately $236,000 to the City for the project of about $1 million during the delay, unless the City assumed that cost. He said that to this point, the interest had accrued on the straight ratio he mentioned earlier; if the council chose to delay the project and a decision was made to accrue the interest to the property owners, he believed another public hearing would be required because the final assessment amounts would be increased. Councilor Bettman indicated opposition to the motion to table because of Mr. Klope's statements. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 6 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson asked the purpose of the delay if the outcome would not be different. Councilor Pap~ did not know if there would be a change in the final outcome, but he had been made aware of what he considered valid challenges to the road project. For example, there were suggestions that the bicycle path was not built to legal width. He was also concerned about whether the road was constructed according to design, and suggested that an outside consultant be hired to determine whether there were manufacturing defects. Mr. Klope said that there were several defects to the surfacing of the roadway that the contractor was directed to remedy. None of those defects would result in additional costs to the City or to the property owners. Therefore, staff decided to proceed with the assessments and stop the interest expense. In response to a question from Councilor Rayor, Mr. Klope described the problems being experienced with the roadway surface. He said the City notified the contractor that the surface must be repaved. Councilor Rayor did not think delaying the assessments would be in the public interest. He said that no one wants to pay assessments. It was up to the City to work through the quality control issues. He pointed out that the assessment method in question was arrived at through a considerable amount of work with Lane County. Councilor Rayor said that everyone else in the City with a paved street had paid for it when they paid for their house. He said the council needed to uphold the policies of the Public Works Department and the established method of paying for streets. City Manager Carlson said that the Hearings Officials' findings were clear that the property owners would not be assessed for the road surface deficiencies. Further, the property owners do not pay for the bicycle lanes or other related road amenities. The amount being assessed was based on sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and seven feet of pavement. He did not believe delay would change the final assessment unless the council directed the staff to deviate from the ordinance the council adopted in 2001. Councilor Taylor asked if the contractor could be required to pay the interest. Mr. Lidz said that he would have to examine the contract. Councilor Taylor thought that such an approach would be fair. She noted her opposition to the City's method of street assessments, and thought it unfair residents be assessed before the project was done. Mr. Lidz agreed with City Manager Carlson that the assessment method was dictated by ordinance and would not change as a result of the delay. The City Charter limits the council's ability to do anything other than assess according to the ordinance. Councilor Meisner asked if the quality control corrections related to the project would be affected by the motion. Mr. Klope said no. Councilor Meisner concurred with the remarks of Councilor Rayor, saying delay was not in the City's interests. Councilor Kelly supported the findings of the Hearings Officials and the track the project was on. Staff was addressing the deficiencies that exist. The question of whether the bicycle lane was legal was addressed at length in the minutes of the Hearings Official. He said that the project was MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 7 Regular Meeting built, the moneys expended, and the delay merely cost more money. The assessments would not change. He added that he doubted that, with the exception of Councilor Rayor, the council was in the position of making engineering judgments. Responding to a question from Councilor Pap~, Mr. Klope said that the City held back part of its payment to the contractor and had a performance bond. The contract was clear as to the finished project. Councilor Pap~ asked if the City had communicated to the residents about the problems. Brian Genovese of the Transportation Division said that the deficiencies and their treatment were documented and shared with residents. Councilor Pap~ asked if the property owners could be informed by mail of the time line for corrections. Mr. Genovese said that there were few property owners and he believed that they had all been contacted. Councilor Rayor asked if oil tracking was occurring. Mr. Klope said that in areas where flushing occurred, there could be those complaints, although none had been received. Roll call vote; the motion to table failed, councilors Rayor, PapS, and Taylor voting yes. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Manager Carlson said the council would consider Council Bill 4794, an ordinance levying assessments for paving, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and storm sewers on Ayres Road from Delta Highway to Gilham Road and on Gilham Road from Ayres Road to Honeywood Street; and providing an immediate effective date (Contract 2001-26) (Job #3367). Councilor PapS, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. City Manager Carlson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4794 by council bill number only. Councilor PapS, seconded by Councilor Nathanson, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed 6:2; councilors Taylor and Pap8 voting no, and became Ordinance No. 20257. Councilor Kelly called for a five-minute recess. Mayor Torrey resumed the chair and called the meeting back to order. 6.ACTION: Ordinances Adopting West Eugene Parkway Amendments Ordinance No. 1: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to Include the Entire West Eugene Parkway Within the 20-Year Financially Constrained Roadway Project List and to Make Related Amendments; Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11, and 14; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 8 Regular Meeting Ordinance No. 2: An Ordinance Amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to Redesignate Property Within the Modified Project Alignment of the West Eugene Parkway from Protect and Restore to Planned Transportation Corridor; Adopting a Severability Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Mayor Torrey noted his ownership of property on West 11th Avenue and said that, in the past, he had been challenged regarding his impartiality to act on the issue of the West Eugene Parkway because of that ownership. The State Ethics Commission determined he did not have a conflict of interest in regard to the issue. He requested legal advice on the issue from City Attorney Lidz. Mr. Lidz confirmed the mayor's lack of a conflict of interest. At the most, Mr. Lidz stated, the mayor would have a potential conflict of interest, and having declared that conflict and its nature, he would be free to participate in the discussion and to vote. City Manager Carlson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4795, an ordinance amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area Transportation Plan (TransPlan) to include the entire West Eugene Parkway within the 20-Year Financially Constrained Roadway Project List and to make related amendments; amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to adopt exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14; adopting a severability clause; and providing an effective date; with Exhibit A replacement pages 1-4, 6, 7 and 50 and replacement Exhibit C, Findings. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mayor Torrey solicited council comments on the motion. Councilor Kelly said the City must act in a manner that was consistent with law. He said that the council had fulfilled the direction of the November 2001 vote. Councilor Kelly said that the advisory bodies and the elected and appointed officials examined the laws to determine if the amendments conformed. He found it telling that of the four advisory bodies, only the Eugene Planning Commission took the time to study the law and subsequently had recommended against the amendments. On the basis of his examination of the record, Councilor Kelly agreed with the commission's conclusion. He believed the parkway survived on momentum rather than merit. He believed there was evidence to reject the amendments. He termed the parkway a "$100 million band-aid" that would provide minimal benefits. It was not the answer to congestion in west Eugene and it had a tremendous cost and no benefits he could perceive. Councilor Kelly said the community should not expect construction to begin soon. He believed that approval of the amendments would result in years of litigation that would dived the community away from constructive work on its transportation needs. Councilor Fart said that on November 6, 2001, the council asked the community if it wished it to pursue the parkway. The answer was yes, and he believed it was the council's job to listen to the people. It was not the council's job to weigh in on the legality of the issues involved. He said the council had an opportunity to restore faith with the voters and move ahead with the parkway. Councilor Fart said he had recently held a community meeting in the Bethel area regarding the parkway, and there was unanimous support for the parkway among those northwest Eugene residents in attendance. The parkway would benefit Bethel residents. He said it would be a shame if the council ignored the will of the voters on the issue. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 9 Regular Meeting Councilor Meisner said he was not happy with the process that led the council to this point. He did not think that councilors on either side of the issue considered the issues involved with an open mind. There was no new analysis before the council. He was discouraged that the council was relying on poor and out-of-date planning to make a decision. He was also discouraged by the lack of interest in alternative planning measures on the part of both the council and the community, as evinced by the community's rejection of the alternative measure. Councilor Meisner believed that the council's role in the process was minimal. There was no guarantee that the Oregon Department of Transportation (©D©T) would have the needed funding for the project or the needed federal waivers and fill permits to ensure the project went forward. He believed there was a guarantee of long-time litigation. There would be no near-term solution to the traffic problems that exist the west side of the city. ©D©T had made it clear that the parkway was not a solution for west side transportation problems. It was designed to connect Highway 126 to Interstate I-5. He reiterated that west side transportation improvements were needed, and he did not know where the funding was to come from if all the money was going to fund the parkway. Councilor Meisner did not interpret the ballot measure as advisory but as directive. He noted that his former Ward 7 had voted against the parkway, but his reconfigured ward, following redistricting, had not voted against the parkway. It was a different world. At this point in the process, Councilor Meisner said he tended to feel bound by the vote but did not expect to see the parkway constructed in his lifetime. Councilor Bettman believed the council had done what the voters directed it do by facilitating the land use and transportation planning process. She thought the process revealed that the proposed amendments were inconsistent with applicable policies and plans. Councilor Bettman did not think the TransPlan amendments sufficiently addressed the issue of putting more traffic on 6th and 7th avenues, and the fact the improvements, when modeled, gave neglible results. At the same time, other needed transportation projects would be postponed to ensure the parkway was constructed. Regarding the issue of the vote, Councilor Bettman believed that there was selective civic mindedness when it came to respecting the vote of the people. She said that former mayor Jeff Miller urged the council to respect the vote, but as City Councilor for Ward 6, on June 27, 1988, Mr. Miller was part of the council majority that voted to repeal the nuclear-free zone, which was also passed by the voters. Councilor Bettman acknowledged that the community was sharply divided on the issue, but she intended to oppose the motion. Councilor Rayor said he had read all the materials submitted to the council and walked a part of the route alignment. He had concluded that the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP) was clear as to what it was trying to do in protecting wetland communities and native wet prairie through a connected series of wetlands. He continued to be disappointed with the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), which was inadequate and out-of-date regarding to the natural environment issues involved. He thought the project the right project in the wrong place. Councilor Rayor said that the SEIS indicated that the wetlands would be fragmented by the modified alignment to an unacceptable degree. That was a serious issue for him. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 10 Regular Meeting Councilor Nathanson said that she had not changed her previous position. She continued to support the parkway and was prepared to move the project along. The parkway project was a State project intended to address transportation through and in western Lane County, not just in Eugene. It affected communities around the city and was part of the State system. Councilor Nathanson wanted to move forward with ideas to address the aesthetics of West 11th Avenue, which is large, hazardous, and unattractive. She pointed out that the council had recently adopted a motion offered by Councilor Meisner to take steps in that direction. Councilor Taylor agreed with the remarks of Councilor Kelly. She said that approval of the amendments would delay consideration of real transportation improvements and result in the destruction of the wetlands. Councilor Taylor showed those present an artist's rendering of the parkway as it would appear crossing over the wetlands to demonstrate the scale of the project in relationship to the wetlands. Councilor Taylor said she had also reviewed the materials extensively and recently visited the wetlands. At that time she learned that traffic from the parkway will be heard from the Stewart Pond mitigation site. She argued that the illegality of the parkway project was demonstrated by the need to make exceptions to State goals. She said that federal policy would be violated because land bought for natural resource purposes with federal money would be affected. She said that there were many legal and moral arguments against the parkway. Councilor Pap~ said that he had hoped an alternative to the parkway could be found last year, and when none was found, the parkway measure was offered to the voters. He said that the voters asked the council to facilitate the construction of the parkway, and he did not think it was facilitating the parkway to look for a way to reject it. He congratulated staff for the work it had done in creating the findings and said he believed there was a way to build the parkway. He agreed that it might not happen tomorrow. Councilor Pap~ said that the council should abide by the will of the voters. He indicated support for both ordinances. Mayor Torrey said he hoped the council would cast a unanimous vote for first reading. Mayor Torrey said that the parkway was important because he did not know of an alternative to transportation problems in west Eugene. He said that local elected officials spent considerable time trying to get funding for the first phases of the parkway, and ©D©T had declined to support a partial solution. He pointed out that the council had shown no support for new revenues in Eugene that were applied to anything other than road maintenance. If the parkway was rejected by the council, the cost of all transportation improvements east of the Beltline would be the responsibility of local residents. Mayor Torrey thought Eugene could serve as a national leader by building a highway through the wetlands that impacted the wetlands as little as possible. He believed the agencies in charge of the project would work to make it environmentally sensitive. He said that while the parkway was still a road, he thought it could be an entrance to be proud of. Mayor Torrey said that it was time to move the project forward. If the parkway could not meet the legal hurdles that lay ahead, it would be stopped. He suggested that in the absence of the parkway, widening Highway 126 would face many of the same issues. Mayor Torrey called for another round of comments. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 11 Regular Meeting Councilor Farr suggested that the issue was one of credibility with the voters, ODOT, and the City's other partners in transportation planning. He called on the council to abide by the vote, which he also considered directive rather than advisory. He agreed with Mayor Torrey that future legal challenges would be addressed by other bodies. He found it ironic that those least impacted by the parkway were those who opposed it the most. Returning to the issue of credibility, Councilor Fart said that if the council did not follow the will of the voters in this instance, he did not advise those councilors in opposition to run for a citywide office. Councilor Rayor determined from City Manager Carlson that no environmental work had been done on any other projects in TransPlan. That work occurred when a project was authorized. Simply being on the projects list did not imply that environmental concerns did not exist. Councilor Rayor said his ward was split on the issue and he acknowledged it was located somewhat far from the project. He believed the TransPlan amendments were acceptable but the WEWP clear in its goals, and he was disappointed that the SEIS did not address hydrology in terms of connectivity or the water table. He remained convinced that the east end of the project was appropriately located, and if the parkway was connected to West 11th Avenue at Beltline it would be a "fantastic project." However, ©D©T had not supported that approach Councilor Kelly believed that credibility with the voters was important, which was why he gave the vote serious consideration, but he also thought it important to provide credibility for those who were opposed to the parkway. He believed it would be inappropriate to ignore the public testimony against the parkway because of the vote. Councilor Kelly said that as a result of the November 2001 vote he had been prepared to support the TransPlan amendment. However, he was persuaded by the Eugene Planning Commission's argument about the prioritization process that lay behind the TransPlan project list. To amend the plan at this point would be to discard that process. Regarding the partial parkway approach mentioned by Mayor Torrey and Councilor Rayor, Councilor Kelly believed that ODOT had chosen to ignore alternatives that did not support the full th parkway. He said that the SEIS indicated that the intersection at Beltline and West 11 Avenue, in 2015, would be at 96 percent capacity if the full parkway was constructed. Within the accuracy of the figures, he believed the intersection was at capacity. Councilor Bettman believed it was important to demonstrate leadership. She believed that if it was up to the planners and engineers, the City would have a nuclear power plant on Coburg Road. She thought the parkway was equally bad. Regarding the vote, she said the voters did not have the benefit of the testimony and findings the council had. She thought the testimony and findings demonstrated what a bad project the parkway was. She thought the council vote would reflect the division in the community. Councilor Bettman said that her constituents also deserved consideration, and pointed out that they had shown generous support in the past for investing in the City's infrastructure and other public services. They had also opposed the parkway overwhelmingly. She suggested that the council could not have it both ways: the parkway was either a regional project or it was a Eugene project. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey thanked the council for the courtesy of its unanimous vote on first reading. MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 12 Regular Meeting City Manager Carlson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4795 by number only. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the motion passed, 5:3; councilors Kelly, Taylor, and Bettman voting no, and the bill became Ordinance No. 20258. City Manager Carlson said that the council would consider Council Bill 4796, an ordinance amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to redesignate property within the modified project alignment of the West Eugene Parkway from Protect and Restore to Planned Transportation Corridor; adopting a severability clause; and providing an effective date; and replacement Exhibit B, Findings. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved that the bill, with the unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Mayor Torrey called for comments on the motion. Councilor Kelly spoke against the motion because ©D©T had not identified how much of the wetlands would be mitigated or the area where mitigation would occur. He had no sense of whether it was possible to mitigate the wetlands in question because there was no information provided to the council regarding the issue. He asked what would happen if ©D©T was unable to find enough land to mitigate upon. He also opposed the motion because it would require a waiver of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policy related to the use of properties purchased with Land and Water Conservation Funds. He believed that would set a national precedent for taking lands purchased for preservation for use as a roadway. Finally, Councilor Kelly believed there was solid biological information in the record that indicated that west of Beltline, the project would do irreparable harm to the largest remaining contiguous wetlands. Councilor Bettman agreed with Councilor Kelly's comments. She spoke of how essential water was to human life, and said that the federal government recognized that fact through the passage of the Clean Water Act. The act was not just for animals and plants, it was for human beings, because the wetlands served the function of filtering water, restoring the aquifer, and controlling flooding. If the WEWP was amended to accommodate the parkway, there was no such thing as protection for wetlands. With enough momentum and money, any environmental protections could be reversed. She said that the amendment was not consistent with applicable plans and policies. Councilor Fart questioned what would happen if every time the voters voted, the council discussed whether or not to uphold the will of the voters. He suggested that chaos would result. He repeated that credibility was an issue; the voters had spoken, and the council should facilitate construction of the parkway. Councilor Rayor believed he had acted to facilitate the parkway by working to push the solutions preferred by the Environmental Protection Agency. Those solutions were rejected. He said that the area that would be affected contained several species of interest, both animal and plant. He cited Bradshaw's Iomatium and Kincaid's lupine as examples of plant species of interest. Councilor Rayor suggested the voters should have voted to overturn the ordinances implementing MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 13 Regular Meeting the WEWP if they wanted the parkway. He did not think it was the plan's intent to bisect wetlands with roads. He did not think that ODOT would ever get through the environmental process because the project had huge environmental problems. He agreed that a west connector was needed, but it should be near West 11th Avenue. Councilor Pap8 said that the parkway was long-envisioned and the WEWP developed so that wetlands could be mitigated and banked, and commercial and industrial properties in that part of town developed. Those developable properties needed transportation connections. He appreciated the staff research on successful and unsuccessful mitigation, noting that the science was not clear as to the success of the mitigation needed. He was optimistic that ODOT could successfully mitigate the wetlands that would be lost. Councilor Meisner asked Planning Director Jan Childs to discuss the land previously reserved for the WEP in the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. Ms. Childs provided some background, noting that the southern alignment previously designated for development in the plan was found to have natural resource issues. The development designation was subsequently removed from the southern portion and the planned transportation corridor designation was recommended to be applied to the northern alignment. It was not applied earlier because ODOT had not made its final alignment selection at the time the plan amendments were adopted in 2000. Following selection of the alignment as the preferred alternative, the amendment was to have moved forward. Mayor Torrey said he believed the community could produce a road and take care of the wetlands. He said that for the project to proceed, the BLM must be convinced the wetlands to be impacted would be mitigated. Determining the mitigation ratios would be a process involving the local community. He did not think the community would allow mitigation to occur sloppily, or that ODOT would fail to comply with what the BLM and the Army Corps of Engineers asked of it. Mayor Torrey said that BLM indicated some months past that the Eugene Speedway property was the last property it would acquire in west Eugene, and it was concerned about its ability to restore and maintain what property it already had. He said that the road would consume 55 acres of wetlands, but he believed there were well more than 55 acres of wetlands of the same or higher quality that BLM could require ODOT to acquire for mitigation. Mayor Torrey said that there was no better community to make the WEWP work as it was intended to, which was to balance the needs of the environment and the development community. Councilor Rayor asked Ms. Childs for an explanation of the designations shown on Map 3 in the 1992 version of the WEWP. Ms. Childs clarified there were only three wetlands designations in 1992: Protect, Develop, and Restore. The idea of the planned transportation and utility corridors came later, after the adoption of the 1992 plan, and was based on administrative rules adopted by the Division of State Lands in recognition that in some cases roadways and utility corridors were needed in wetlands that would otherwise be protected. The alignment was designated for development in 1992 as that was the only designation that would allow for fill at that time. She pointed out how narrow the area was, and that it followed the contours of the proposed alignment. In both cases, the corridor designation would be applied in very specific situations. Councilor Bettman reiterated that there was no plan in place for mitigation. ODOT was asking the City to amend the plan before knowing the actual impact and the mitigation approach for that impact. She believed the road would affect much beyond the 55-acre footprint, altering the functions and values of the wetlands in a way that could not be mitigated. Councilor Bettman said that the City continued to pull back on wetland protections, so she did not believe the WEWP MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 14 Regular Meeting represented a real balance. She said that the project would separate one part of a functioning and contiguous wetland, and she questioned where the Fenders blue butterfly would go while its lost habitat was mitigated. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mayor Torrey again thanked the council for its unanimous vote on first reading. City Manager Carlson said the council would consider Council Bill 4796 by council bill number only. Councilor Kelly, seconded by Councilor Pap~, moved that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; the vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; councilors Kelly, Taylor, Bettman, and Rayor voting no; councilors Nathanson, Meisner, Pap~, and Fart voting yes. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in favor of the motion, which was passed by a final vote of 5:4, and the bill became Ordinance No. 20259. Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Carlson City Manager pro rem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 8, 2002 Page 15 Regular Meeting