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 - 02/20/01 Work Session
MINUTES Joint Meeting of the Eugene City Council, Lane County Board of Commissioners and Members of Lane Transit District Board Lane Transit District Board Room--3500 East 17th Avenue February 20, 2001 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey; Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Fart, Gary Pap~, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman, Eugene City Council; Anna Morrison, Chair, Bobby Green, Sr., Peter Sorenson, Cindy Weeldreyer, Lane County Board of Commissioners; Hillary Wylie, Chair, Gerry Gaydos, Lane Transit District Board of Directors; Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Plannng Director Jan Childs, Transportation Engineer David Reinhard, City Engineer Les Lyle, City of Eugene staff; Lane County Administrator Bill VanVactor; Transportation Supervisor Nick Amis, City of Springfield staff; Tom Schwetz, Lane Council of Governments; Bob Pirrie, Oregon Department of Transportation; Director Ken Hamm, Lane Transit District; Robert Cortright, Land Conservation and Development Commission. Mayor Jim Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Board Chair Anna Morrison called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to order. She noted that Mr. Green would have to leave before 7 p.m. and that Commissioner Bill Dwyer was excused from the meeting. A quorum of the Lane Transit District, Board of Directors was not present. Present were board members Hillary Wylie and Gerry Gaydos. Springfield City Council members were not present, due to their own scheduled meeting. Nick Arnis, Transportation Supervisor of the City of Springfield, was present. 1.WEST EUGENE PARKWAY Jim Carlson, City of Eugene, reported on the most recent developments on the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) project. This project has been 14 years in progress. The latest work came about due to the need to finalize the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (ELS). In 1990, there was a final ElS issued, but since that time there have been a number of changes, including the adoption of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan (WEWP), as well as other issues which have required additional study and design. Included in the materials presented were the following: · Eugene City Council, Agenda Item Summary, Work Session: Initiation of Amendments to the West Eugene Wetlands Plan, Eugene Springfield Metropolitan Areas General Plan (Metro Plan) and Draft TransPlan Related to the West Eugene Parkway (Oregon Department of Transportation), dated December 11, 2000 MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 1 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members · Letter to Mayor Torrey and City Council, from Robert Pirrie, Area Manager for the Oregon Department of Transportation, dated December 1, 2000 · Letter to Dave Reilly, Acting Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, from Elaine Y. Zielinski, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, dated October 3, 2000 · Letter to James B. Cox, Jr., Senior Project Manager, Environmental Services, from Diana Bus, Acting Coast Range Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, dated August 18, 2000, with the following attachments: · Comments - Recreation Issues relating to the WEP Final Supplemental ElS (SEIS) of January 2000 provided by Joe Williams, Recreation Senior Staff Specialist · Botanical Input prepared by Cathy L. Pendergrass, dated July 8, 2000 · Hydrology Report prepared by Graham Armstrong · T & E Wildlife Report prepared by Dan Crannell · Letter to Diane Chung, Coast Range Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, from John D. Wichman, Division Right-of-Way Officer, Federal Highway Administration, dated April 26, 2000 · Letter to Eb Engelmann, Interim Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation, from Fred Patron, Senior Transportation Planner, Federal Highway Administration. dated September 27, 2000 · Memorandum to Mayor Torrey and City Council, from Dave Reinhard, Transportation Engineer, regarding background information on West Eugene Parkway, dated July 31, 2000, with the following attachments: · 22-A: Existing State Highways and Other Major Routes in West Eugene · 22-B: West Eugene Parkway Route and Project Phases · 22-C: WEP Unit 1-A · 22-D: Excerpt from Supplemental DEIS · Eugene City Council, Agenda Item Summary, Work Session: West Eugene Parkway, dated January 29, 2001, with the following attachments: · Memorandum to Mayor Torrey and City Council, from Dave Reinhard dated July 31, 2000 · Responses to questions from City Councilors on West Eugene Parkway, dated January 29, 2001 · Copy of TransPlan, Fiscally Constrained ODOT Roadway Projects (two-page matrix) · Copy of TransPlan, Future ODOT Roadway Projects (one-page matrix) Mr. Carlson highlighted the primary goals identified for the West Eugene Parkway: 1) access controlled east/west connecting arterial between Highway 126 and the I-5 and 1-105 corridor 2) improved access to West Eugene businesses via direct connection at strategic crossroads (a controlled access arterial, with connections at strategic roads) 3) better link between west Eugene areas with downtown 4) implement an important part of TransPlan 5) relieve congestion and improve safety on West 11th Avenue Mr. Carlson reminded those present that the project had been originally identified in 1978, modified in TransPlan in 1986, and the route was approved in 1986 by 80 percent of the those voting. In the various MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 2 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members EISs, there have been a total of 22 different options considered and analyzed. The SEIS draft was set to be finalized this year, with the bid for Phase lA let this spring and construction thereafter. Mr. Carlson said that, in December 2000, the Oregon Department of Transportation sent a letter to the City of Eugene which included the following requirements: 1. Land use plan amendments: a. Amend WEWP to designate the Modified Project aligmnent as a transportation corridor b. Amend Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan to provide an exception to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14 2. Amend the Draft TransPlan update to include the entire parkway project in the list of financially constrained 20-year capital investment actions. Mr. Carlson said that the letter stimulated the December 11 and 13 work sessions of the Eugene City Council. The conditions were considered and the council decided not to initiate the plan amendments or move forward with the parkway. After the December meeting, staff reported to the City Council at the January 29, 2001 work session, requesting direction on two issues: 1) what do to with the project that was in TransPlan (Unit lA), as well as other related projects on the future list; and 2) what direction was desired on the $17 million currently programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). No action was taken at that work session at the request of Ms. Nathanson, who was not able to be present. As a result of that meeting, it was decided to host a Joint Elected Officials meetings, inviting regional partners to further discuss this issue. Mr. Carlson distributed two additional letters which were just received by the City of Eugene: · Letter to Betty Taylor, Chair, Metropolitan Policy Committee, from Fred Patron, Senior Transportation Planner, Federal Highway Administration, dated February 16, 2001, with a six- page attachment: Guidelines for Coordinating National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Approvals and Fiscally Constrained Long Range Plans · Letter to Mayor Torrey and City Councilors, from Robert Cortright, Transportation Planning Coordinator, Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Mr. Pirrie, Area Manager, Lane County, Oregon Department of Transportation, reviewed the various phases of the parkway project using a large map for demonstration. Using a system cost approach, Mr. Pirrie outlined the commitment for funds in the west Eugene area: Beltline Phase 1 - Barger $16.5 million Beltline Phase 2 - Royal $10.5 million Subtotal $27.0 million West Eugene Parkway Unit lA - Seneca to Beltline $17.3 million Unit lB - 7th Avenue overcrossing $34.2 million Unit 2A - 2 way out W. 11th to Oak Hill $30.5 million Unit 2B - 2 lane to 4 lane expansion $ 6.5 million Subtotal $88.5 million Terry Street $ 2.2 million MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 3 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members West 1 lth/Green Hill-Danebo $ 4.5 million Beltline Phase 3 $17.0 million Subtotal $23.7 million Project Totals $139.2 million Mr. Pirrie added that the $6.3 million had already been spent for right-of-way acquisition for Unit lA, as well as $3 million in development costs. BLM is aggressively managing and constructing wetlands throughout the area, creating a conflict with BLM for the construction of Unit 2A and in getting authorization from the BLM to construct Unit 2 across the land that BLM has purchased with Land and Water Conservation Funds. Mayor Torrey invited comment. Mr. Green expressed his appreciation to be invited to this forum to receive information on the parkway. He noted that the project was not supported by the majority of the Eugene City Council and asked what the likelihood was that the $17 million might be used for other projects in the Lane County area. He asked what the likelihood was that the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) would approve other projects in Lane County. Mr. Pirrie said that the dollars are authorized only for this project. Reauthorization of the funding would go through the locally established metropolitan planning organization process. That process would start with Transportation Planning Committee, which would make a recommendation to the full MPC, which would be forwarded to the Lane County Board of Commissioners. Then, the four area commissions would meet and discuss where the funds would be allocated throughout Region 2. Mr. Pirrie said that there was no assurance that the funds would remain in Lane County. He noted the Oregon Transportation Commission which would have the final authority over the allocation of funds. Ms. Bettman asked several questions: 1) Is there specific criteria for determining the merits of a project, 2) Is one of the merits based on the timing of projects to be considered, and 3) Can the $17.2 million be used to fund projects that are already in the queue. Mr. Pirrie said that the funds were considered "modernization" funds, which can only be used for modernization projects. Under the parameters established by the Oregon Legislature, the funds would have to be used for projects in the ODOT right-of-way. The funds are also within the current STIP. Under the STIP, the funds are allocated for the current fiscal year. Ms. Bettman asked if some other projects might move further up on the list. Mr. Pirrie said that part of the problem was the need to have a project ready to go to bid. There are other projects within Region 2, although not in Lane County, which are ready to go to bid. Unit lA was ready to go to bid. Mr. Meisner spoke to the five purposes of the project as outlined above and asked about their origin. He noted that there seemed to be a conflict between ODOT and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) in developing the system. Mr. Pirrie said that the project was intended to be part of an overall system that would provide inter-connectivity between Highway 101 and Interstate 5 through Highway 126. He said that the five purposes were included in the EIS. Mr. Carlson said that the City of Eugene assumed responsibility for West 11th Avenue from Beltline to Garfield Street when the parkway was designated as the State highway. Prior to that, West 11th Avenue was part of the State highway system and the interest of the State of Oregon was to identify a different facility to meet the need for connectivity. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 4 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members Ms. Taylor asked if there was any other way to accomplish connectivity, and could the funds be held for another year. Mr. Pirrie said that there was the possibility for reallocating the funds. He said that the funds could be held and used on some portion of the highway system. He said that ODOT's primary interest was in Beltline and West 11th Avenue. He noted that without further construction, the intersection at West 11th Avenue and Beltline Road was projected to fail. Ms. Morrison asked for clarification on having the project listed on the "restricted" list and questioned if other projects had to be dropped. Mr. Pirrie said that there is $172 million included in TransPlan's fiscally constrained project list. Projects intended to be constructed within that 20 years' period are on the constrained list. He said that the $17 million would not be part of that if it had already been approved in the previous STIP update. The entire parkway would need to be included in the $172 million constrained list, which means that other projects would have to be removed from the futures list. Ms. Weeldreyer arrived at 6:02 p.m. Ms. Wylie asked what competing projects were ready to proceed within Region 2. Mr. Pirrie said that the Newberg/Dundee bypass, as well as projects in the Astoria area, are ready to proceed. There may be other phased projects which might be ready to go. There may also be projects which have construction overruns. Mr. Kelly asked if the projects categorized as "ready to go" are within the current STIP or in the 2002-2006 STIP. Mr. Pirrie said that current projects are those that are ready to go to bid. He said that there may an opportunity to move some of the future projects forward, using these funds, allowing for future funds for other projects. He characterized this as a "programming movement." Mr. Pap~ arrived at 6:07 p.m. Mr. Kelly asked if the whole parkway project was required to be in the fiscally constrained plan, would an equivalent number of other projects have to be removed, or would they simply be moved out 20 years. When ODOT sent its December letter, was there a suggestion from ODOT for what projects should be removed from the TransPlan list? Mr. Schwetz responded that the federal guidelines said that there are options to include the entire costs in the project costs. He referred to page 5, question 10 of the Guidelines for Coordinating NEPA Approvals and Fiscally Constrained Long Range Plans. He said that this reference implies the flexibility to either amend TransPlan or look at a new EIS that considered a segment of the project. Mr. Kelly referenced the same citation and noted that the restriction for smaller segments were that "those projects must have (1) logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope, (2) have independent utility or independent significance..., and (3) not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements." He asked if one could stand up and say with a straight face that Unit lA met the criteria of having a logical termini or had independent utility. Even so, a new NEPA process would be required, which meant the $17 million would still be lost because it must be spent this year. Mr. Schwetz said that there would need to be a financially constrainable segment. He said that the question then becomes how that affects the financial constraints of the plan. He said that it was not an $88 million question, but a smaller amount. Mr. Kelly said that if Units lA and lB were considered, it would then be an approximately $10 million to $20 million issue that would require removing $10-20 million of other projects from the list. Mr. Schwetz concurred. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 5 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members Mr. Fart suggested that it was not that any project would be "killed," but would be delayed for 20 years. Mr. Pirrie concurred. Mr. Fart said that the projects did not need to be removed from the 20-year constrained plan, even if up to $61 million is added for the parkway, but can be left in the plan, just not in their entirety. Mr. Schwetz said that it was necessary to keep within the $172 million constraint. Mr. Fart asked if it was realistic to think that the members of the OTC will not allow emotions to enter into their decisions, regarding other projects in the area, given the response of the Eugene City Council to suspend the parkway, thus invalidating the work of both ODOT and the OTC. Mr. Pirrie said that he could not speak for the OTC. He said that it would be important to look at the engineering data that was available and look at the competing priorities/projects and recognizing that there is greater need than there are funds, and that funds would be reallocated. Mr. Gaydos asked Robert Cortwright of the Department of Land Conservation and Development to speak to the letter he sent last week, specifically statement in the third paragraph, 'If this major facility is removed from the plan, then Eugene must assess the consequences on the transportation system and reconfigure land uses and the transportation system to provide a match between land use and the planned transportation system." Mr. Cortwright said that his letter was not intended to address the federal financial constraint requirement; rather, it was intended to address the State transportation planning rules. The implication that DLCD has made is that the parkway would be removed not just from TransPlan, but from any plan. The process for accomplishing this would be initiating a comprehensive plan amendment or through the adoption of TransPlan, when that adoption occurs. Ms. Nathanson observed that the $88 million was not an astonishing amount of money, put into context with other projects. She asked about the costs of recent transportation projects. Mr. Reinhard responded that the Ferry Street Bridge project totaled $30 million and that the West 11th projects--Beltline to Danebo and Danebo to Terry Street--totaled $4 million to $5 million. Ms. Nathanson spoke about the process that would be required for another project, which culminates with a review with an approval or denial with the OTC. She asked if it would be legal to make a direct appeal to the OTC. Mr. Pirrie responded that anyone can go to any public board, including the OTC. However, there is a process which the OTC has asked be followed. Ms. Nathanson suggested that if there was a proposal that the Joint Elected Officials (JEO) could agree to, the JEO could appeal directly to the OTC and bypass a two-three year long process, as well as bypass the need to compete with other projects. Mr. Green responded, as the Lane County representative for the region, that Lane County does not compete well with other projects because many of its projects are still in the study state. Lane County needs to compete not only within the region, but also statewide for project funding. As an analogy, Mr. Green said that the best approach would be to consider the project as an orange--ODOT wants the peel, Lane County wants the fruit. He did not think that going directly to OTC would be in the best interest of the region. Ms. Nathanson commented that if Lane County then has to compete, it is back at the bottom of the list. Mr. Green said that this was the risk that was being taken by dropping the parkway from the project list. Ms. Nathanson asked if the federal funding rule, adopted in 1998, had been challenged, even though this project was approved prior to that time. Mr. Schwetz said that the requirement for financial constraint was MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 6 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members adopted in 1991. He said that he was not sure how that coordinated with the time line for project approval. Mr. Carlson said that for several years the expectation had been that the project would be under construction prior to the adoption of the TransPlan update. The entire West Eugene Parkway is in the existing TransPlan. Part of the problem was timing. He said that had the project been finalized a couple of years ago, it would have been accepted under the existing plan. He noted that the project has been "ready" several times, although there has never been a final SETS since the 1990 ETS. Mr. Sorenson asked if the segmentation of the project required an overall SEIS. Mr. Pirrie said that the entire project was included in the ETS and therefore each segment was included, but a SETS would be required for any one segment of the project. Mr. Sorenson asked when the SEIS would be done. Mr. Carlson said that the completion of the SEIS was dependent on the conditions outlined by the December ODOT letter. If the three conditions are not accepted, then the existing SEIS could not be finalized. There would have to be a new SEIS, which would initiate a new round of environmental studies for other proposals. Mr. Sorenson noted the charter amendment requires a vote, and asked if the alteration of the proposed route of the parkway intersects or conflicts with the public vote requirement in the City of Eugene Charter. Mr. Carlson said that the legal opinion to date has been that the route that was approved by the voters in 1986 could accommodate minor changes. The question of whether a new vote is required for a new project has not been addressed. Mr. Sorenson asked Mr. Pirrie to rate or describe the level of conflict between the BLM and ODOT on this project. Mr. Pirrie said that BLM is taking active management efforts to create a high quality wetlands in the area in the vicinity of the Unit 2 segment. Currently, there has been a collaborative effort to make this a national model for programs. He said that the two agencies have been working together, and could not describe a level of conflict. Mr. Sorenson asked for an explanation of a national waiver. Mr. Pirrie said that land purchased with Land and Water Conservation Funds cannot be used for purposes other than what was intended by Congress when establishing the fund without a waiver from the Washington office of BLM. Mr. Carlson added that the lands purchased with Land and Water Conservation Funds cannot be transferred to another owner, but must be kept in perpetuity, although other uses can be allowed with the granting of the waiver. Mr. Sorenson asked when the WEWP went in to effect and if the plan affected the project. Mr. Carlson said that the plan adopted in 1992 included a provision for the approved aligmnent of the parkway, which at that time was south of the railroad tracks. With the change to the northern aligmnent, that provision was eliminated and the plan must be amended to allow the parkway to be located in the northern aligmnent. Mr. Green emphasized the importance of the local transportation partnership. He believed it was important to keep the funding in the region and indicated he would support Mayor Torrey's proposal regarding the parkway. He said that he was concerned about the discussion of the conflict between the wetlands and parkway and asked why development and wetlands cannot coexist. He said that if there was a way to keep the $17 million in the region, that should be done, although he acknowledged the difficulty of doing so. Mr. Green said it was difficult for him to argue at Region 2 that funds should remain in this area when other areas have projects ready to go, and do not have the conflict that has emerged locally. He urged the involved MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 7 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members parties to look carefully at the project and keep in mind the interests and concerns of ODOT. Mr. Green believed that even if another alternative was adopted, there would still be congestion problems on West 11th Avenue in the future. Mr. Green left the meeting. Mr. Rayor announced a potential conflict of interest because of his employment with the engineering firm that worked on Unit lA. He declared that the conflict would not preclude him participating in the discussion. Mr. Rayor asked what ODOT's position if Unit 2 was not feasible. Mr. Pirrie reiterated ODOT's interest in preserving the State highway system. Mr. Pirrie questioned what the utility of Unit 1 would be if Unit 2 was not constructed. Without Unit 2, he asked what the resulting volume of traffic might be on the Beltline Highway and what could be done to get traffic into Beltline. He demonstrated his comments using a wall map of the area in question. Mr. Rayor asked why an intersection, such as that at Highway 105 at Main Street in Springfield, could not be used. Mr. Pirrie said that would be the type of intersection that the State would be left with, which was not acceptable. He said that ©D©T would be back to planning, traffic studies and rescoping. Mr. Pap~ suggested that there might be a potential to get some additional federal funding from Congress. Mr. Carlson said that there was already some federal funds built into TransPlan's financial revenue assumptions, and that some earmarked funds are expected over the next three transportation planning cycles. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about the lack of a local Area Commission on Transportation (ACT), Mr. Pirrie said that ACTs were developed at the suggestion of the OTC to develop priority lists and make recommendations to the OTC. Each ACT has a charter, with decisions made by the local elected officials. There are three ACTs in Region 2. In the Lane County Area, the MPC agreed that the Lane County Board of County Commissioners would serve as the ACT. Mayor Torrey asked what would happen if Eugene proceeded with the full parkway, Unit lA was constructed, and then the State did not have funding to complete the parkway. Mr. Pirrie believed that ©D©T would work to secure the needed funding. Mayor Torrey asked if ©D©T had any responsibility to provide funds to deal with the congestion impacts that will result if the parkway was not built since the only way to get into Eugene from the west was on West 11th Avenue. Mr. Pirrie said that was a tough question. He said that currently, local street network funds that were approved by the last legislative session for work within the right-of-way have been spent. Mr. Rayor said he felt that the Eugene City Council was blind-sided by the additional federal funding requirement. He also felt the project was compromised by the change to the northern alignment, which had a greater impact on wetlands, and that was not the local jurisdiction's fault. He said that the east phase has a logical terminus. He said that he did not see why it did not stay in the queue. He added that he was in support of rescoping the project to meet current circumstances. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 8 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members Mr. Sorenson expressed concern that this dispute would be representative of how other local transportation issues would be resolved in the future. Ms. Nathanson said the project has reached this point because of the delay in the project and the fact new regulations were imposed by the state and federal government that are contradictory with each other. She noted that she represented southwest Eugene and her constituents have been counting on the parkway project getting under way. Traffic from West 11th Avenue already spills onto local streets. The congestion on West 11th Avenue was State-imposed congestion on local streets. Ms. Nathanson said that Eugene was on the brink of losing $17 million, which put it in the position of beginning a new five- to ten-year process for planning, estimating, designing, and then competing for scarce dollars. She said that it was her desire to salvage a version of this project, keep the $17 million, and find a solution which will benefit both the State and Eugene. Mr. Gaydos said that from LTD's perspective, it was important that the transportation network work. He said that LTD may consider directing BRT down West 11th Avenue, which was becoming more difficult to do as time progresses. He said that the ability to move people in that direction was important to LTD. He called for an end to blaming and criticizing others, saying that the situation was the result of many factors. Mr. Gaydos suggested that when one of the the 12 Statewide land use planning goals dominated a process, such as natural resource protection, it skewed the land use planning process and affected the future of the region. He said that the project has been in process for long time and he encouraged that the project be moved forward. Mr. Farr, who also represented an area of west Eugene, said that the project would make west Eugene less isolated. He considered the parkway a promise that had made to the citizens of West Eugene. He proposed a series of questions, which he answered in the affirmative: 1) will traffic flow from west Lane County continue to increase; 2) does west Eugene need traffic relief; 3) was there money in place to begin the project; 4) can the project be creatively fit into the 20- year constrained plan, without eliminating other projects; 5) the only project that is in danger of being killed is this project; 6) will the area lose the money allocated for the parkway; 7) does the City risk losing credibility and competitiveness for future projects; and 8) is there a need to move forward with first phase. Referring to Mr. Carlson's comment that the WEWP would require an amendment to accommodate the northern alignment, Mr. Kelly asked if an amendment was needed for Phase 1. Mr. Carlson said that said that those areas have already been designated to the project. No additional changes are needed. Mr. Kelly asked for a copy of the map showing the WEWP designations and the Phase lA alignement. Mr. Kelly said he was committed to working on West Eugene transportation issues. He was very frustrated that there was a desire to hold on to the $17 million but no proposal on how to keep the funds. According to Mr. Pirrie, the only way to keep the $17 million was to accomplish the actions set forth by ODOT, which meant adding the entire $88 million project to the constrained project list. He said that the even the Mayor's proposal, which merited further study, would require a new NEPA process. Further, he said that there have been a number of alternatives, including the proposal to consider lA and 1B as the entire project, but very few facts about this alternate proposal. He proposed two other proposals and has asked staff for answers to address those proposals. He said that staff has not yet prepared answers and he wanted the council to MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 9 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members direct staff to come up with some "quick and dirty" answers on how much the proposals would cost. Ms. Wylie expressed her appreciation for being invited to this meeting. All present have an intense desire to continue the good living environment in the community, but that there were divergent ways of bringing that goal about. She acknowledged that the LTD board spent significant time discussing what the transportation system will look like 20 years from now. Ms. Morrison said that she wanted to retain the $17 million and supported construction of Phase 1. However, she expressed concern about losing Phase 2. She said that the Board of County Commissioners worked closely with the City of Eugene to get this project approved. The community's population has increased in the last 10 years and transportation needs have continued to increase. She said the community needed to address the congestion problems now as well as in the future. She agreed Mr. Gaydos' comments about the difficulty of serving West 11th Avenue from Beltline east with transit. Ms. Morrison pointed out that there are a lot of citizens who live outside the urban growth boundary who have not been included in the discussion. Ms. Morrison told Mr. Pirrie that she considered this a State highway project that had nothing to do with local arterial streets. She said that in the past two years, the traffic patterns and congestion have changed in the West Eugene area. She called for a common sense approach to the problem. Regarding the waiver required for Phase 2, Ms. Morrison said she did not see any concern in obtaining a waiver. Ms. Taylor asked Mr. Pirrie if he had suggested that if just Phase lA was completed, that it would increase problems rather that solve problems. Mr. Pirrie said that Phase lA will add to th traffic congestion, specifically on West 11 Avenue, west of Beltline. Regarding the requirement for a waiver for construction of the parkway over the wetlands, Ms. Taylor said that just because the City could get a waiver did not mean it was the right thing to do. She said this project was not paramount. If the City has been going in the wrong direction, then the direction should change. She said she would be in support of the proposed motion by Mr. Kelly and at looking at alternative proposals. Ms. Weeldreyer said that most of her comments have been made. She echoed the comments of Mr. Farr and Ms. Morrison. There are clearly many legitimate projects within Region 2. She noted that development in the Veneta area will encourage growth west of Eugene and that many of those residents will be commuting into Eugene and Springfield for work. She had confidence that a solution could be found. Ms. Weeldreyer expressed a concern that ©D©T not lose funds that have been invested in purchasing right-of-way for Phase lA. She said that the issue of elected official credibility was very important to consider. She supported a solution that segmented the project, and wanted the elected officials to work together to address the growing congestion problems in West Eugene. Mr. Meisner did not see the solution as building new capacity. He said that he has heard nothing from ©D©T that it would "actively" work with the City to remedy the local traffic problems. The parkway was designed to be an expressway and it did not have great connections to westside neighborhoods. He said that the City Council has to be concerned with local problems and solutions, as well as traffic through the community. He said that he was not sure that cutting the west Eugene neighborhood in half would benefit the neighborhood. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 10 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members Mr. Fart left the meeting. Mr. Meisner said that he too wanted to keep the $17 million for local transportation projects. He asked if there were other projects, approximately that large, which could be moved off the 20- year list to the futures list. He asked that the information be provided later. Mr. Meisner said that over the last 14 to 15 years, (::)DOT has deprogrammed and defunded the project more than once. He asked if (::)DOT will guarantee funding for the entire project if the City Council puts the entire parkway in the fiscally constrained plan. Mr. Pirrie said that the OTC would make the final determination. Mr. Meisner said that was not a guarantee. He said that he did not see Phase 2 as viable and would like to find a solution or see additional studies. Ms. Bettman said that she believed that the eastern phase, Beltline to Highway 99, would require another NEPA process. She asked how long that process would take. Mr. Carlson said it has taken 14 years to this point. He believed that the minimum time required would be a year. Ms. Bettman asked how much time and resources would it cost the City to amend the WEWP and Metro Plan. Ms. Childs said that it would take nine months to a year and cost $100,000 to go through the amendment process. Ms. Bettman said that every option appeared to require more study and time. Mr. Pirrie agreed. Ms. Bettman did not think the City had to hurry toward a decision. She suggested that the City Council look at all the options on the table. In the meantime, she asked what keeping the $17.3 million meant locally. She said she was in favor of studying the options that have been put forward. She would also support moving forward with studies on West 11th Avenue and other parts of the corridor. Mr. Pap8 commented that the parkway project was proposed because of a projection of future need. The project addressed the need for connectivity between State highway facilities. He said that the City needed to keep something on track. He did not agree that Phase 2 was out of the realm of possibilities. He said that, certainly, alternate modes of transportation were part of the solution, but not the whole solution. Mayor Torrey said that he disagreed with Mr. Pirrie's statement regarding the negative impacts of Phase lA onto West 11th Avenue and Beltline. If traffic does not use lA, traffic will continue to use West 11th Avenue and that there will be no net reductions in traffic. If Phase lA is built, then the City will at least have used $17 million of State of Oregon funds which will take pressure off of West 11th Avenue, even if the City of Eugene has to complete Phase 1B. Mayor Torrey said there needs to be a discussion on what impact will be on the citizens of Eugene. If the State of Oregon will not participate in projects east of Beltline and West 11th Avenue, that meant that the citizens of Eugene will have to spend their own tax money to develop transportation infrastructure in that area as congestion worsens. Mayor Torrey said he would like to ask the council to place a measure to asked the citizens how the City should proceed on the May ballot. He said that if the council was not willing to put such a measure forward, he would ask it to grant permission to Mayor Torrey and any others who wish to go to Salem to address the Oregon Legislature regarding the parkway. Mayor Torrey said that if the City Council is going to kill the West Eugene Parkway, then the council should tell the citizens that, with an explanation as to why and what the implications of the decision will be. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 11 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, that the Eugene City Council reaffirms its commitment to pursing a variety of strategies and mechanisms to improving safety and traffic flow in West Eugene. To that end, it directs the City Manager to provide prompt answers to transportation, fiscal, and land use questions related to three alternative projects: 22) A parkway generally on the West Eugene Parkway Right-of-Way from Beltline east to Highway 99. 23) An arterial street generally on the West Eugene Parkway Right-of-Way from Beltline east to Highway 999. 24) An arterial street from Beltline east to Highway 99 that would make use of some of the already improved street Right-of-Way in that area. Transportation answers for these alternatives should include evaluation of effects of these projects in combination with other TransPlan projects in west Eugene such as Beltline Phase 3 and West 11th Avenue upgrade. The goal of such answers will be to allow the Eugene City Council and other metro-area officials to make a clear determination of the future of these alternatives no later than April 15. Further, the council directs the City Manager to promptly provide the council with ideas of how it can move ahead with additional West Eugene projects, including the West 1 lth Study (TransPlan project #332), the West 18th Study (TransPlan project # 118), Beltline phase 3 (TransPlan project #312, with some likely modifications), and the West 11th Avenue upgrade from Green Hill to Danebo (TransPlan project #333). Ms. Nathanson said that she hated to have this meeting turn into a work session of the Eugene City Council with the other elected officials present. She expressed a concern that there were other proposals that might be considered and that two councilors had left for other commitments. Mr. Meisner left the room. Mayor Torrey noted that there will be a 30-minute session at the February 26 City Council meeting to further address this issue. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to table the motion. The motion failed, 2-3, with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Rayor voting in support; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition; Mr. Meisner being out of the room; Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ being absent. Ms. Nathanson urged City Council members to limit the discussion to five minutes and then allow the partners to comment on the options being considered by the City Council. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 12 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members Mr. Kelly explained that he made the motion because he had gotten word from staff that it did not have specific direction from the City Council to proceed. Ms. Bettman concurred that she has heard that staff needed directions. She said that although this was a "balancing act," there was no official direction from the City Council. Mr. Meisner returned. Mr. Rayor said that he believed that an affirmative vote on this motion would not preclude other options. Mr. Kelly said that the motion asked for answers on three options. Mayor Torrey asked staff if the motion can be accomplished. Mr. Carlson said that the request was really an environmental impact study, including land use, transportation, preliminary design. Mr. Kelly disagreed. Mr. Carlson said that he could not commit the resources of LCOG and ODOT to answer the questions. This is a State project and the modeling has been provided through LCOG. He said that Eugene staff can come back with some level of response by April 15, with whatever resources partners can provide. Mr. Carlson said he did not know if the level of response would be sufficient. Mr. Meisner said that the motion and its study request really were an integral part of TransPlan. LCOG will have to work on these issues as part of TransPlan. Mr. Schwetz disagreed. Mr. Carlson said that there is not an adopted Transportation Plan with those studies in it. The studies will not be done prior to the adoption of TransPlan. Mr. Meisner asked what the local resource need might be. Mr. Reinhard said that the work would be done in staff's spare time. Mr. Pirrie said that whatever is arrived at needed to have a legitimate basis that can be used in future studies. He said that this might involve significant money and suggested that this might be a project to carry forward as a STIP project in the next round. From a staff perspective, there was not planning nor design time to put a lot of effort into this. He questioned the value of the study. Mayor Torrey asked if there was anything which would preclude him from seeking State support. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Bettman said yes. Mayor Torrey asked why there would be a motion to preclude him from trying to give the City Council the opportunity to vote on something that the State might be willing to pay for, and still allow the City Council to come up with its own recommendations, which could compete with the Mayor's recommendations. He urged that the motion be defeated. Mayor Torrey read from a letter from Grace Crunican, dated February 15, "we have been committed to the parkway and will continue that commitment." He said that it was clear that the City Council can proceed with the parkway and can proceed with the development of Unit IA. Ms. Bettman did not think the parkway would result in significant congestion reductions. She urged the City Council to move forward. She added that the information does not have to be prepared quickly, but that there is the luxury of time. She urged the City Council to focus its efforts on how the $17 million could be attracted back to the community for projects that are already approved that are in the state right-of-way. Mr. Rayor asked Mr. Kelly if the motion precluded potential acceptance of Phases lA and 1B. Mr. Kelly said that it did not. Mr. Rayor said that a lot of work has already gone into the parkway; the State has bought $6.3 million of right-of-way. He said that he wants to work on connectivity today, not when all the intersections MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 13 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members have failed. He said that he would support the motion to get the information to Mr. Kelly, but was disappointed that the parties involved could not get the information. Mr. Kelly said that he recognized that it was LCOG's staff that would be involved, but that he was following the protocol to direct the City Manager to seek whatever assistance was needed. Mr. Kelly said that he set April 15 because there has been a sense of urgency. He said that this motion does not preclude the Mayor from lobbying to get the state to proceed with Phases lA and lB, except if that was the only proposal the Mayor was lobbying for. It would allow for the Mayor to lobby for ways to do all three of the alternatives within the motion, not for one alternative exclusively. Mr. Kelly added that he was between angry and dumbfounded. He said that although there have been calls to use the $17 million, there have been no proposals to proceed. Ms. Nathanson said that the Mayor's alternative would have been one way to forward and keep the money. Mr. Rayor also had a proposal which would have accomplished the same. As a result of the council's decision at its December meeting, the council would be looking for a variety of alternatives. She said that she did not understand that the variety of alternatives would preclude the Mayor's proposal for 1A/lB. Of all the issues that would be explored in the motion, there are no funds set aside for any of the proposals. She said that she did not see solutions identified in the motion to identify funds. Unless the City can explore if the State can fund options, then the issue will remain unresolved. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion to add the phrase, "and to continue to explore funding and construction of West Eugene Parkway Units lA and lB or similar alternatives," after (3) of the motion. Ms. Nathanson said that this motion includes the specific scenario that has been proposed by Mayor Torrey. Mr. Kelly said that the motion was unnecessary because Mayor Torrey's proposal was included in subparagraph (1) of his motion. Mr. Meisner said that while he would support the motion, he felt that it was meaningless. He said that he concurred that the Mayor should not lobby for a single alternative exclusively without the direction of the City Council. Ms. Taylor said that the intent was already included in subparagraph (1) and she would not support the motion. Mayor Torrey said that he felt that the motion would give him direction and to the point, only speaking to lobbying on this particular element, he urged others to lobby for their own proposals. Ms. Bettman said that she would not support the motion. The vote on the motion was a 3:3 tie; Mr. Rayor, Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner voting in support; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition; Mayor Torrey breaking the tie by voting in support of the motion. The final vote was 4:3. MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 14 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members To the amended motion, the motion passed 5:1, with Ms. Nathanson voting in opposition. Before the meeting adjourned, Mr. Rayor requested to change his vote on this motion, to be recorded in opposition. Without objection, the final vote on this motion was 4:2, with Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Meisner and Ms. Taylor voting in support; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Rayor voting in opposition; Mr. Fart and Mr. Papd being absent. Mr. Gaydos commented on the proceedings and noted that any proposed changes to the Metro Plan would have significant costs at public expense. He asked that the City Council try to be civil to each other and to the guests invited to attend the meeting. Ms. Morrison thanked Mr. Gaydos for the comments. Ms. Morrison adjourned the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Morrison left for another commitment. Mr. Sorenson said that it was valuable to be able to thank people for their efforts. These issues are difficult and time-consuming. He commented that democracy was like French impressionist painting, it looks so much better from a distance. He said that having an official position was not always an advantage. He said that he felt it was important to have a decision from the City Council which reflected the wisdom around the table. Mayor Torrey adjourned the City Council at 8:24 p.m. (Recorded by Kris Aanderud) MINUTES-Joint Meeting- Eugene City Council February 20, 2001 Page 15 Lane County Commissioners/Lane Transit District Board Members