Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 08/22/01 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Special Work Session McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall August 22, 2001 5p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary PapS, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Rayor. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor James D. Torrey called the special work session of the council to order. Councilors Pat Farr and David Kelly participated by telephone hook-up. Mayor Torrey indicated that Councilor Gary Rayor was excused from the meeting. A.Work Session: Ballot Title Appeals-Measure 20-53 "Transportation Improvements in West Eugene" and Measure 20-54 "West Eugene Parkway" City Manager Jim Johnson reviewed the contents of the council meeting packet, which included the following: 1) agenda item summary related to the item; 2) Resolution 4687; 3) the title, question, and explanation for each ballot measure prepared by the City Attorney's Office; 4) the appeals submitted by the four appellants. He noted materials distributed just prior to the meeting, including: 1) August 22, 2001, memorandum from staff to the mayor and council entitled West Eugene Parkway Projected Impacts and Mitigation Requirements; 2) a chart entitled West Eugene Parkway-Acres of Wetland Impacts and Mitigation Requirements; 3) a chart entitled West Eugene Parkway-Acres of Wetland Impacts on the West versus East Side of Beltline; 4) a facsimile from Bob Pirrie of the Oregon Department of Transportation regarding the West Eugene Parkway System Cost; 5) a memorandum from the City Attorney to the mayor and council entitled Baflot Title Appeals-Standards and Procedures; 6) a chart entitled City Attorney's Summary of Appellants'Positions (as related to Measure 20-54); 7) a chart entitled City Attorney's Summary of Appellants'Positions (as related to Measure 20-53); 8) an e-mail message from appellant Rob Zako with additional suggested changes; and 9) an e-mail message from Ms. Bettman with suggested ballot title changes. Mayor Torrey called for resolution of the issue regarding the sequence of the measures on the ballot. City Attorney Jerome Lidz advised the council to adopt a motion related to the order. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to abide by the results of the City Manager's coin toss regarding the order in which the measures appeared on the ballot. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 1 Work Session Ms. Nathanson objected to the coin toss because it appeared to produce results that differed from the resolution, which used references to "first" and "second." She thought the parkway should appear first on the measure because it proceeded discussion of the transportation alternatives. Mr. Kelly did not recollect council discussion of the order of the measures on the ballot. He thought the resolution merely enumerated the measures themselves. He further indicated his belief that his position on the order of the ballot measures had been misrepresented; he had not requested the measures be reversed in order because he was not aware of the order; the City Recorder had informed him that was an administrative decision. He thought it made sense to have the alternative transportation improvements measure first because people were less familiar with it than the parkway measure. Mr. Kelly supported the City Manager's decision as represented by the coin toss. Mr. Fart agreed with the analysis of Ms. Nathanson. He determined from Mr. Johnson that City Recorder Kate Fieland was involved throughout the entire process of determining the measures' order on the ballot. Mr. Fart said he had considered the order in the resolution the order of the measures, not merely an enumeration of the measures. He added he did not fault the judgement of the manager in the matter, but disagreed with the approach taken. Mr. Pap~ indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson. He thought the council as a whole should have been consulted about the order of the measures on the ballot. Mr. Meisner pointed out that, typically, the council neither established the ballot numbers or the order of the measures. He distinguished between administrative procedure and council policy, and said in this case the order of the measures was correctly decided by the manager. He acknowledged the concerns expressed by other councilors, but suggested that those concerns were based less on process than on outcome. Ms. Bettman indicated concurrence with the remarks of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Meisner. She said the resolution was not the governing document for what the ballot would look like, and council had not discussed the issue of the order of the measures. She preferred to maintain the current order if had been established by precedent. Ms. Taylor agreed that the decision was made in a correct and neutral manner. Mayor Torrey did not think the decision was made correctly, and that the manager was mistaken in not returning with the order of the measures to the council. He said that the two measures were like two people running for the same office, and the first measure would have the advantage. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Fart, and Mr. Pap~ voting no. Mr. Johnson indicated that, in the future, the council would be consulted on the order of ballot measures. Mr. Lidz briefly reviewed the memorandum entitled Ballot Title Appeals-Standards and Procedures. He emphasized that discussion of the merits of the ballot measures was not appropriate; the question before the council was what constituted a fair and appropriate ballot title. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 2 Work Session He overviewed the two charts he had prepared summarizing the appeal issues. Mr. Lidz called attention to revised ballot titles he had prepared, and reviewed the documents. Copies of the revised ballot titles were distributed to council members. Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing on the appeal issues, calling for testimony first on Ballot Measure 20-53, Transportation Improvements in West Eugene. He noted that appellant Eben Foder had been unable to attend the meeting, but his appeal statement was included in the packet. Terry Connelly, Government Affairs Director of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, spoke on behalf of appellant David Hauser. He called for changes to the ballot title for Measure 20-53 that reflected that the West Eugene Parkway was not among the improvements contemplated. Other approaches contemplated were not improvements, but rather strategies to address traffic. Because of that, the chamber proposed the title Transportation Strategies in West Eugene, not Including the West Eugene Parkway. Regarding the explanation for the ballot measure, Mr. Connelly called for deletion or revision of the fourth sentence to eliminate what the chamber considered misleading information. The sentence called for the City to work with the State on transportation improvements in west Eugene, but the State had already made it clear to the City that it was not interested in working with it on transportation improvements that do not address the needs of the State system. He thought the measure should also include the socio-economic costs of down-zoning property resulting from the cancellation of the parkway. Mr. Connelly also called for text in the measure that made it clear the purpose of the measure was to cancel the West Eugene Parkway. He referred councilors to the alternative text prepared by the chamber. Rob Zako thought voters who supported the parkway might also support alternative transportation improvements, particularly as the parkway was not projected to solve all transportation problems in west Eugene. He did not think support of the measure precluded support of the parkway. Mr. Zako thought the voters would be confused by an either/or choice; it seemed like the two measures were asking the same question in two different ways. He noted his distribution of revised language replacing the last sentence in the explanation of Ballot Measure 20-53 that read "If this measure and Measure 20-54 both pass, both measures shall take effect." That way voters could vote on each measure on its merits. Mr. Zako thought it important that the measures be sufficiently clear so the voters know what they are voting on and the council knew what it had to do with the results. He suggested that the explanation for 20-53 be modeled on the motion the council passed on August 6 approving the bulk of staff recommendations related to the design charette held for west Eugene. He proposed the alternative measure be retitled Develop Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Plan for West Eugene. He noted the text for the question and explanation proposed by the appellants. Mayor Torrey solicited testimony on the title, explanation, and question for Ballot Measure 20-54. David Monk advocated for a change to the title that recognized that there were certain things that must occur before the parkway could be built, suggesting as a substitute Initiate Amendments Required for Construction of West Eugene Parkway. He enumerated some of the plan amendments that must occur before the parkway could be constructed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 3 Work Session Terry Connelly asked that the explanation for Ballot Measure 20-54 be modified to reflect that 68 acres of wetland mitigation would be required if the parkway were constructed, rather than 34 as currently stated in the explanation. He also expressed concern that the statement related to computer traffic modeling did not present the complete story to the voters in that it did not mention the anticipated reduction in traffic on other streets in west Eugene. He thought it also inconsistent with the concept of neutrality in the explanation. He suggested it be deleted or substitute text added to the ballot measure explaining the benefits of those strategies in a similar manner. Mayor Torrey indicated he would ask the council to address the titles, questions, and explanations for each measure in turn. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to adopt the existing title for Ballot Measure 20-53: Transportation Improvements in West Eugene. Mr. Fart, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to amend the existing title to read Transportation Strategies in West Eugene, not Including West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Fart believed the change made the measure more clear. Ms. Bettman supported the existing title as it was descriptive of what the measure was trying to achieve, as well as neutral. Ms. Nathanson supported the proposed change as being more clear, noting that improvements could be interpreted as capital improvements. "Strategies" was more reflective of the concepts discussed by the council for addressing traffic in west Eugene, which included transit and car pooling as well as transportation projects. Mr. Pap~ supported the amendment, concurring with the statements of Ms. Nathanson. He thought "strategies" or "approach" more neutral. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment because he thought "strategies" more inclusive than "improvements." Mr. Meisner endorsed the suggestion by Mr. Zako that the explanations of both measures be amended so that both could pass. Mr. Kelly did not support the amendment because of the addition of the phrase "not including West Eugene Parkway," unless the council was to change the title of the other measure "West Eugene Parkway Instead of Other Improvements." Regarding the use of the word "strategies," Mr. Kelly did not object, but pointed out that most of the projects contemplated in the explanation would be considered capital improvements. Ms. Taylor preferred "improvements" but could accept "strategies" if the last clause was eliminated. She agreed with Mr. Kelly about the two titles mirroring each other if a change was made. Mayor Torrey endorsed the amendment as clarifying the issue of what the voters were voting on. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Bettman thought the council should be giving the community a choice of whether it wanted the West Eugene Parkway or another package of viable strategies and improvements that accomplished the same thing. She thought it biased to present the community with a choice of parkway or no parkway as it detracted from what the measure has to offer. Ms. Bettman disagreed with the mayor that the amendment provided clarity. She thought that the council was giving voters the choice of whether they want the parkway or whether they want another package of strategies and improvements in west Eugene that are also viable but a different way of doing things. She said she had concerns about the remaining text as she thought the explanation was overly focused on the parkway and did not describe what the strategies would be. Ms. Bettman said that, to be unbiased, the council should ensure each measure could stand on its own. She added she did not agree with the addition of text implying that each measure could pass, which would give the voters the illusion they "could have their cake and eat it, too." There was not enough funding for everything. Mr. Fart said the ballot measure precluded the parkway; the other measure did not preclude other improvements in west Eugene. He added that there was funding for transportation improvements beyond what was allocated through the State Transportation Improvement Program. The amendment to the motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to retain the existing ballot title for Measure 20-54: West Eugene Parkway. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by changing the title to $88 Million West Eugene Parkway. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly to change the title to Pursue $88 Million Funding and Approvals for West Eugene Parkway. Ms. Nathanson suggested if a funding amount was associated with this title, it should be included in the other title, but pointed out the level of funding required for those strategies was not known. She opposed the amendment. Mr. Fart concurred with Ms. Nathanson. He also pointed out that the inclusion of a dollar figure in the title would mean people expected the cost to be exactly that. Mr. Pap~ concurred with Mr. Farr and Ms. Nathanson. He said that the $88 million included the $17 million already allocated, so the amendment was inaccurate. Mr. Meisner also opposed the amendment. He did not want to pack the title with too much information. He endorsed the approach suggested by Mr. Monk for the title as it was more accurate. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 5 Work Session Mayor Torrey did not think the amendment correctly reflected the subject of the ballot measure. It did not discuss the source of funding or the fact that there was funding allocated. The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting yes. The main motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Taylor voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to retain the existing ballot question for Ballot Measure 20-53: Shaft City address transportation problems in west Eugene with projects other than the West Eugene Parkway? Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by substituting the following text: Shaft City address transportation problems in west Eugene with a combination of transportation improvement projects and strategies? Ms. Bettman thought the motion consistent with the action taken by the council on August 6. Mr. Kelly supported Ms. Bettman's amendment for the reason she cited, and thought it additionally responded to the concerns expressed by appellants. Mr. Fart did not support the amendment because the council did not have the contemplated improvements and strategies in place or the funding to support them. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend the amendment by substituting the following text: Shaft City address transportation in west Eugene with a combination of transportation projects and strategies other than the West Eugene Parkway? Mr. Pap~ said that the amendment to the amendment made it clear what the council was asking the voters, and made it clear that the measure was specific to improvements outside the parkway. Ms. Bettman opposed the amendment to the amendment as campaigning for the parkway, and did not support the removal of "improvements" because all the strategies discussed during the west Eugene transportation charette represented improvements. She did not want to see the issues framed in terms of "parkway or not the parkway." She thought it did not give the measure or the transportation solutions contemplated a chance to stand on their own. Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment to the amendment and was unsure of his position on the amendment. Neither captured the notion of partnership or the long-term nature of the strategies, or the fact land use patterns would be affected. The amendment to the amendment failed, 4:3; Mr. Pap~, Mr. Fart, and Ms. Nathanson voting yes. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 6 Work Session The amendment to the motion failed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting yes. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to amend the motion with the following text: Shaft City work with government partners to develop a comprehensive, long-term transportation and land use plan for west Eugene? Mr. Meisner wanted to emphasize the concept of partnerships and the interrelationships between transportation and land use planning. In addition, he thought shod-term solutions inadequate, and a long-term plan was needed. He reiterated his interest in two measures that could pass. Ms. Bettman was concerned that the motion did not address the shod-term needs, and suggested the motion be modified by referring to "shod- and long-term transportation, land use plan..." Mr. Lidz suggested the alternative wording, Shaft City work with government partners to pursue comprehensive transportation and land use plan for west Eugene? Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman accepted the text proposed by Mr. Lidz. Mr. Kelly agreed a comprehensive long-term plan was required, and thought it was implicit if the measure passed that it would be done. However, because he did not believe that the measures should be worded so both could pass, and he wanted to present the voters with a clear choice. If the voters perceived the two measures as alternatives to each other, he feared that the voters would be more supportive of a project over a plan. Due to a concern raised by Mr. Pap~ about the connotations of the word "plan," Mr. Meisner, maker of the motion, suggested the word "plan" be replaced by "strategy." Ms. Bettman, the second, accepted the change. Mr. Farr supported the amendment. He emphasized the long-term nature of the approach, saying that it was important people understood action would not occur immediately. Ms. Bettman said she did not support the amendment as it was not sufficiently specific. Mr. Meisner and Ms. Bettman accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Nathanson to substitute the following language: Shaft City work with government partners to pursue comprehensive transportation and land use strategies and projects for west Eugene? The amendment to the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to retain the current question for the West Eugene Parkway: Shaft City take actions to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway? Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the question to read: Shaft City attempt to obtain Sxx million in funding and initiate required approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway? Mr. Johnson suggested that "xx" could be replaced by "$71.2 million." Mr. Kelly believed the figure was in error as it was based on 1995 dollars, and should be inflated to current dollars. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 7 Work Session Johnson said that ODOT had indicated the issue was more complex than inflation, and it had no further information to offer. Mr. Kelly suggested the number be inflated by two percent yearly for the six years since the estimate. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Farr, moved to amend the amendment to read: Shaft City pursue funding and transportation and land use approval to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway? Ms. Nathanson thought the amendment incorporated all the concepts mentioned by councilors. Ms. Bettman wanted the price of the parkway in the question, noting that other councilors mentioned that it should be included. Mr. Meisner supported the amendment, pointing out the explanation for the measure included the amount of funding. The amendment to the amendment passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. The amendment to the motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mr. PapS, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes, spending 7-1/2 minutes on one of the remaining items and 7-1/2 minutes for the other remaining item. The motion passed, 6:1, Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Farr left the meeting. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adopt the revised explanation for Measure 20-53 drafted by the City Attorney. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to amend the motion by substituting the explanation with the explanation in her e-maih City Council is asking voters, through this baflot measure, whether to address transportation issues in west Eugene through a combination of strategies to improve safety, capacity, and operational efficiency. City would pursue short-term strategies to preserve/improve existing roadways in west Eugene, including improvements to West 11th west of Beltline; Beltline from West 11th to Roosevelt; and the West 11~h - Beltline intersection. City would also work with local and state governments to develop comprehensive long-term transportation strategies for west Eugene that may include: traffic flow improvements on West 11~h Avenue east of Beltline; new or enhanced roadways to improve street connectivity; increased use of alternative modes such as transit, bike paths, and possible commuter rail. If this measure passes, XX acres of wetlands west of Beltline would be preserved. Other costs, environmental and traffic impacts are yet to be determined. If this measure and other City measure on same harlot (West Eugene Parkway) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 8 Work Session both pass, then whichever measure receives the most yes votes shaft prevail. Ms. Taylor supported the amendment as being more clear about what was intended than the attorney's draft. Ms. Nathanson thought if the explanation for the West Eugene Parkway was clear about the benefits of the proposal, the explanation for the alternative should be clear as well. Mayor Torrey asked how one would know the wetlands west of Beltline would be preserved. He did not think the explanation proposed by Ms. Bettman was neutral. Mr. Pap8 thought neither explanation spoke to the potential loss of State funding, and while both spoke to the entire street, ODOT had indicated its lack of interest in funding improvements east of Beltline. He felt that those facts should be made clear to the voters. Ms. Bettman said she had reworded her motion so it did not necessarily imply the State would be assisting the City. She thought the general wording reinforced an approach through which the voters directed the council to pursue different types of strategies, allowing the City to compete for funding for the strategies. She said she included text related to the wetlands for the sake of balance, because the wetlands were mentioned in the explanation for the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Johnson noted that the resolution passed by the council was specific that the explanation of the measure should include that the passage of the measure would mean the City would inform the State to cancel the West Eugene Parkway. Mr. Kelly suggested the revision to the title satisfied the concern raised by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kelly requested information on the acreage of wetlands potentially impacted east of Beltline for the purpose of modifying the amendment. Ms. Bettman indicated the number was 44.2, and accepted the figure as a friendly amendment. The amendment to the motion passed, 4:2; Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap8 voting no. The main motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Nathanson voting no. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. PapS, moved to adopt the revised explanation for Measure 20-54 drafted by the City Attorney: In 1986, Eugene voters approved route for proposed West Eugene Parkway (WEP). WEP would run east-west from Garfield to city limits. This baflot measure asks whether to move forward with WEP. Federal government now states entire WEP must be included on Regional Transportation Plan's (TransPlan) funded project list. If WEP is included on funded project list, other projects totaling SXX million must be removed from list, or those projects need to be funded from other federal, state, local revenues. WEP would fill approximately 50 acres of wetlands; estimated 53 to 92 acres of restored, enhanced or new wetlands would mitigate loss of filled wetlands. Additional approvals from federal, state, other local governments are needed for WEP to proceed. Computer MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 9 Work Session modefing of WEP indicates current traffic volume on West 11th at Beltline of 22,000 vehicles/day will increase by year2015 to 46,000 without WEP and to 38, 000 with WEP. If this measure and other city measure on same ballot (West Eugene Transportation Improvements) both pass, then whichever measure receives the most votes shaft prevail. Mr. Pap~ determined from Transportation staff Gary McNeel that the modeling for vehicles/day on West 11th Avenue for the year 2015 with the parkway in place should be 37,000, and offered that figure as a friendly amendment, which was accepted by Ms. Taylor. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by changing SXX million to $81 million. Mr. Meisner did not support the amendment because of a lack of firm estimates about the cost, and indicated he could support the phrase "...other projects totaling at least $71.2 million must be removed from list..." The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 3:3 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mayor Torrey voted against the amendment, and it failed, 4:3. Ms. Taylor and Mr. Pap~ accepted a friendly amendment from Ms. Bettman to modify the phrase "city limits" to "outside city limits." Ms. Bettman thought the motion should be amended to reflect the funding identified may not be available. Responding to a concern expressed by Mr. Lidz about the legal limit on words in the explanation, Mr. Kelly suggested the first sentence be dropped as it merely provided history rather than an explanation of what would occur if the measure passed. Mayor Torrey did not support that approach. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion by deleting the first sentence and changing the fourth sentence to read "If WEP is included on funded project list, other projects totaling SXX million must be removed from list, or those projects need to be funded from other federal, state, local revenues, which may not be available." Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend the meeting time by 15 minutes. The motion passed, 5:1; Ms. Nathanson voting no. The vote on the amendment to the motion was a 3:3 tie; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting yes; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Pap~ voting no; Mayor Torrey voted against the amendment, and it failed, 4:3. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to amend the motion by revising the fourth sentence to read "...at least $71.2 million..." and by revising the first and second sentences as follows: "In 1986, Eugene voters approved route for proposed West Eugene Parkway (WEP). ~^/'-Dvv~, ...... ,vw,~,~ running east- MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 10 Work Session west from Garfield to city limits." The amendment to the motion passed 4:2; Mr. Kelly and Ms. Taylor voting no. The vote on the main motion was a tie, 3:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Pap~ voting yes; Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bettman, and Mr. Kelly voting no; Mayor Torrey voted in support of the motion, and it passed, 4:3. Amended Ballot Measure 20-53 now read as follows: BALLOT MEASURE 20-53 Title: TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES IN WEST EUGENE, NOT INCLUDING WEST EUGENE PARKWAY. Question: Shaft City work with government partners to pursue comprehensive transportation and land use strategies and projects for west Eugene? Explanation: City Council is asking voters, through this ballot measure, whether to address transportation issues in west Eugene through a combination of strategies to improve safety, capacity, and operational efficiency. City would pursue short-term strategies to preserve/improve existing roadways in west Eugene, including improvements to West 11th west of Beltline; Beltline from West 11th to Roosevelt; and the West 11th - Beltline intersection. City would also work with local and state governments to develop comprehensive long-term transportation strategies for west Eugene that may include: traffic flow improvements on West 11th Avenue east of Beltline; new or enhanced roadways to improve street connectivity; increased use of alternative modes such as transit, bike paths, and possible commuter rail. If this measure passes, 44.2 acres of wetlands west of Beltline would be preserved. Other costs, environmental and traffic impacts are yet to be determined. If this measure and other city measure on same ballot (West Eugene Parkway) both pass, then whichever measure receives the most yes votes shaft prevail. Amended Ballot Measure 20-54 now read as follows: BALLOT MEASURE 20-54 Title: WEST EUGENE PARKWAY Question: Shaft City pursue funding and transportation and land use approvals to facilitate construction of the West Eugene Parkway? Explanation: In 1986, Eugene voters approved route for proposed West Eugene Parkway (WEP), running east-west from Garfield to outside city. This ballot measure asks whether to move forward with WEP Federal government now states entire WEP must be included on Regional Transportation Plan's (TransPlan) funded project list. If WEP is included on funded project list, other projects totaling at least $71.2 million must be removed from list, or those projects need to be funded from other federal, state, local revenues. WEP would fill approximately 50 acres of wetlands; estimated 53 to 92 acres of restored, enhanced or MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 11 Work Session new wetlands would mitigate loss of filled wetlands. Additional approvals from federal, state, other local governments are needed for WEP to proceed. Computer modeling of WEP indicates current traffic volume on West 11th at Beltline of 22,000 vehicles/day will increase by year2015 to 46,000 without WEP and to 37,000 with WEP. If this measure and other city measure on same ballot (West Eugene Transportation Improvements) both pass, then whichever measure receives the most votes shall prevail. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 22, 2001 Page 12 Work Session