M I N U T E S
Joint Adopting Officials
Eugene City Council, Springfield City Council
Lane Board of County Commissioners, Lane Transit
District Board
Council Chamber—Eugene City Hall
May 29, 2002
6:30 p.m.
EUGENE COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Papé,
Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny
Bettman.
SPRINGFIELD COUNCILORS PRESENT: Lyle
Hatfield, Anne Ballew, Tammy Fitch, Christine Lundberg, Dave Ralston, Fred
Simmons.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Bill Dwyer,
Peter Sorenson, Anna Morrison, Bobby Green.
ABSENT: Cindy Weeldreyer.
LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Hillary
Wylie, Dave Kleger, Pat Hocken. ABSENT: Gerry Gaydos, Robert Melnick, Susan Ban.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING:
LANE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, EUGENE CITY COUNCIL, SPRINGFIELD
CITY COUNCIL AND LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1. PUBLIC
HEARING: West Eugene Parkway Plan
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
Ordinance No. 2:
An Ordinance Amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to Re-designate 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 called the meeting of the Eugene City
Council to order.
Commissioner Dwyer called the meeting of the Lane
Board of County Commissioners to order.
Mayor Sid Leiken called the meeting of the Springfield
City Council to order.
Ms. Wylie called the meeting of the Lane Transit
District to order.
Mayor Torrey reviewed the protocol for the public hearing.
Commissioner Dwyer read the second reading of
Ordinance PA 11-74, 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 (Metro Plan) and Lane Rural Comprehensive Plan to adopt exceptions to
Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14; and adopting a severability clause. He set a third reading and deliberation for
the Board of County Commissioners on July 24, 2002. Commissioner Dwyer read the second reading of Ordinance PA 1175,
an ordinance amending the West Eugene Wetlands Plan to re-designate property
within the modified project alignment of the West Eugene Parkway from Protect
and Restore to Planned Transportation Corridor.
Ms. Morrison, seconded by Mr. Green, moved to approve
the second reading. The motion passed
unanimously, 4:0.
Mayor Torrey noted that the public hearing would end
at 10 p.m. but written testimony would be accepted for one week after the
hearing (June 5, 2002).
Commissioner Dwyer said that the County’s hearings
would be consolidated, and testimony accepted on both items.
Jan Childs, Planning Director for Eugene, reviewed the
items distributed to the adopting officials at their places: a document containing responses to most of
the questions posed by the adopting officials to staff; and written testimony
received through Tuesday, May 28, 2002.
She noted that written testimony received from today through the close
of the record would be provided to the adopting officials. She noted that the Springfield Planning
Commission minutes of April 16, 2002, were made available at the adopting officials’
places, and should be included in the packet in Attachment B as Item 11.
Ms. Childs noted the entire record was available at
the Eugene Planning Division Office at 99 West 10th Avenue.
Greg Mott, Springfield Planning Director, said that
the Springfield City Council was holding the hearing for the purpose of hearing
testimony and conducting a first reading on an ordinance amending TransPlan to
include the entire West Eugene Parkway (WEP) within the 20-Year Financially
Constrained Roadway Project List and to make related amendments; amending the
Metro Plan to adopt exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals 3, 4, 11 and 14; and
adopting a severability clause.
Mayor Torrey opened the public hearing for Eugene.
Commissioner Dwyer opened the public hearing for Lane
County.
Ms. Wylie opened the public for Lane Transit District.
Leo Stapleton,
89839 Ben Bunch Road, Florence, Lane County Roads Advisory Committee Chair,
noted the committee’s participation in the process to this date. He said the committee voted 4:2 in favor of
the amendments, because it believed the parkway was needed to address
congestion in west Eugene. He expressed
support for the parkway project.
Jon Belcher,
1190 West 17th Avenue, Eugene, Eugene Planning Commission President,
reviewed the commission’s reasons for rejecting the amendments. He submitted written testimony on behalf of
the commission.
Tim Malloy,
909 South 67th Street, Springfield, Springfield Planning Commission
President, said the Springfield commission voted 4:2 to approve the
amendments. The majority of the
commissioners believed that the public vote was sufficient reason to approve
the parkway, and agreed the findings were sufficient to meet the burden of
proof. Those in opposition believed the
burden of proof had not been met, and that there was no evidence to support the
changes proposed in the TransPlan project list. Those commissioners also wished to defer to the Eugene Planning
Commission as they perceived the project to be a Eugene project. He said a majority of Springfield
commissioners disagreed with that conclusion.
Chris Clemow,
95 Springwood Drive, Eugene, Lane County Planning Commission Chair, said the
commission voted in favor of the amendments.
The commissioners agreed it was not a Eugene project but was a
metropolitan area project. The
commission focused its review on wetlands and transportation issues. He said the commission agreed that none of
the wetlands being impacted were of high quality, and the West Eugene Wetlands
Plan (WEWP) allowed for mitigation of lost wetlands. In terms of transportation, the commission agreed the project was
not a magic bullet, but a needed component in the transportation system.
Mark Wigg,
355 Wilke Street, Salem, Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), project
manager for the WEP, said the amendments must be approved before ODOT
proceeded. He noted the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) was a cooperating agency with ODOT. He anticipated the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) would address BLM’s concerns and describe the project impacts with the
best information available. He reviewed
the SEIS process and noted the wetland fill permitting process that lay ahead
if the project was to proceed, which would provide the public with another
opportunity to contact. Mr. Wigg said
the BLM policy related to lands purchased with Land and Water Conservation
Funds (LWCF) strongly discouraged disposal of those lands, and it would require
a waiver signed by the BLM Director for those lands to be acquired by
ODOT. He said that ODOT was working
with various agencies, including Eugene, on the wetland mitigation issue, and
developing a strategy on how to proceed.
Dave Riley,
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Salem, reviewed the NEPA process requirements
as they related to highway projects in which it had financial involvement. He emphasized the importance of the WEP to
the national highway system. Mr. Riley
submitted written testimony.
Jeff Schiecke,
ODOT, emphasized ODOT’s commitment toward construction of the parkway. He submitted written testimony, with the
testimony submitted to the advisory committees attached. Mr. Schiecke said the parkway was needed and
the purpose cleared stated in the SEIS of 1997. He submitted the SEIS. He
also submitted a letter from Bruce Warner of ODOT regarding the deadline
established by ODOT for completion of the amendments process. He spoke to the monetary commitment made by
ODOT and Eugene to this point. He
requested approval of the plan amendments.
Randy Papé,
Oregon Transportation Commission, Eugene, emphasized ODOT’s commitment to the
parkway to meet growing transportation demand.
He described the benefits of the parkway, including increased
connectivity to other parts of the community.
He acknowledged the local and State actions needed to complete the
parkway. He said that the amendment
process must be complete by August 1 or the project could be dropped from the
STIP. The money could then be
reprogrammed to other projects in the state.
He believed the need for the parkway was obvious. He emphasized the importance of partnership
between ODOT and local government. He
asked the adopting officials to approve the parkway.
Bob Ackerman,
975 Willagillespie Road, #200, Eugene, State Representative for District 14,
noted the November 2001 election during which the parkway was approved by the
voters. He reviewed the ballot measures
presented to voters at that time. He said
that it was clear to him that the voters made a policy choice for the City of
Eugene. The council made the decision
to refer the issue to the voters. He
believed the adopting officials had an ethical obligation to carry out the
vote. He thought to do otherwise would
be unfair and a triumph of technical objections over the will of the
people. He noted the negative economic
impact of not building the parkway on west Eugene. Mr. Ackerman said that the adopting officials should recognize
the rights of working people who need family-wage jobs and move ahead with the
parkway to sustain economic growth.
Gary Dunbar,
2222 Willamette Street, Eugene, opposed the parkway and called for the
promotion of local businesses and the creation of a more efficient
transportation system. He called for
new ideas to serve future generations.
Mark Rabinowitz,
28549 Sutherlin Road, Eugene, stated the WEP would cost more than was available
or projected to be available, and asked who was going to pay those costs. He noted the nondisposal policy for BLM
stated the entire project must be funded, and that was not the case. He said ODOT’s property in west Eugene would
be a wonderful addition to the wetlands.
Jeff Miller,
2425 Lariat Drive, recalled the actions taken by previous councils to make the
parkway possible. He said that was done
because of a recognition that the City needed to maintain ODOT’s
partnership. He recalled the vote taken
in the 1980s to provide additional reassurance of local support to ODOT. He called for follow-through on the
community’s long-term planning so the community continued to receive ODOT
funding. He said that the parkway was
not just a Eugene issue. He urged the
joint adopting officials to respect the will of the voters.
Tom Bowerman,
33707 McKenzie View, Eugene, called for transportation alternatives that were sustainable
in nature and asked the adopting officials to show leadership by rejecting the
parkway.
Paul Conte,
1461 West 10th Avenue, offered his “Top Ten Reasons” for opposing
the Eugene parkway.
Jan Wellman,
City of Veneta, encouraged the adopting officials to approve the Eugene
parkway. He said that Veneta residents
used Highway 126 daily and it was very congested, and projected to be more
congested in the future, resulting in significant delays. He noted growth that was occurring in
Veneta, resulting in more people commuting to Eugene. He said the parkway was needed for safety.
Beth Adelott,
3690 University Street, Eugene, opposed the parkway because she had not
personally experienced a significant delay in using West 11th Avenue
at peak hours. She was concerned about
spending money on a problem that did not exist. She described a situation in Memphis that also involved a highway
passing over a park purchased with LWCF dollars. She suggested that Eugene would not be able to build the parkway
because of the BLM policy.
Dylan Gnojek,
2325 Blackburn Street, Eugene, opposed the parkway because he did not think the
highway should go through the wetlands, which were visited by school children
and served as habitat for wildlife and provided a function for pollution.
Jim Hanks,
3672 Riverpoint Drive, Eugene, supported the parkway as necessary because
people continue to move to Eugene. The
parkway was planned 25 years ago to accommodate that growth, build the economy,
and improve lifestyles. Development in
the metropolitan area was predicated on the parkway. Potential for growth was limited elsewhere, so it was directed to
west Eugene, which was not constrained by such limitations. Mr. Hanks noted the public’s votes in
support of the parkway. He urged the
adopting officials to support the parkway.
Ellen Kantor,
1290 West Broadway, Eugene, said the parkway would funnel traffic away from the
city’s “heart of downtown” and would foster sprawl. She asked how the investment in West Eugene Parkway fit into the
City’s investments for downtown. She
asked how her neighborhood would be affected when 6th and 7th
avenues became the terminus of the parkway.
She envisioned gridlock and suggested the ultimate solution would be a
highway along those routes, dividing the neighborhood.
Beth Middler,
8794 Shoreline Route, Florence, opposed the parkway and asked the adopting
officials to listen to those who would speak later in opposition to the
amendments. She believed there were
higher priorities for improvements to Highway 126.
Mike Foote,
1846 Heitzman Way, Avalon Village Homeowners Association President, supported
the parkway because it was essential to traffic in west Eugene. He said residents of Avalon Village would
benefit. He said that West 11th
Avenue was already highly congested, and the parkway was needed.
Mike Myer,
4408 West Amazon Drive, opposed the parkway because it would facilitate the
community’s “addiction to driving.” As
a bicyclist, he considered the fumes from cars an unacceptable health
risk. He did not believe the vote was
fair, and it would have been different if the spending had been equal. He believed that Mr. Papé should recuse
himself because of what he asserted was his economic interest in the situation
as the owner of an equipment company.
Steve Moe,
3698 Franklin Boulevard, Springfield, supported the parkway because it was
essential to the metropolitan area. He
said the parkway was long-envisioned and supported by two votes of the people. He believed the cost of the project had been
increased by the delay. He respected
those who opposed the parkway but said they should respect the democratic
process. He asked that the project be
built.
Lora Bixbee,
677 West 23rd Avenue, Eugene, opposed the parkway because higher
priority projects would be postponed.
She believed the parkway violated existing laws and lawsuits would
ensue. Those costs should be added to
the cost of the parkway. She quoted
from an article in the latest publication from 1,000 Friends of Oregon in opposition
to the parkway.
Azra Kahlidi,
4023 Donald Street, Eugene, supported the parkway because of traffic congestion
on West 11th Avenue. She
questioned the reason for the public hearing when the ballot measure was
approved. She asked that the voters’ decision
be respected, and the parkway constructed without further delay.
Linda Swisher,
3285 Bell Avenue, Eugene, opposed the parkway because of the impact of the
parkway on the wetlands. She noted the
historic loss of wetlands and called for maintenance of local natural
systems. She called for control of
“runaway sprawl.” She submitted
materials regarding a plant she studied in the wetlands, timwort, which she
said was rare and endangered. She had
found several plants growing in the path of the parkway, and said they were an
irreplaceable part of the environment.
Cindy Catto,
4590 Commerce, Suite 200, Wilsonville, representing the Associated General
Contractors, expressed the association’s support for the parkway. She said the association believed the
project was necessary. The findings
prepared by staff demonstrated overwhelming evidence in support of the
parkway. She noted the November 2001
vote in favor of the parkway. Ms. Kato
asked that the amendments move forward as the best utilization of State
funding, funding which was desired by Oregon communities elsewhere.
Rob Zako,
1280-B East 28th Avenue, Eugene, submitted information regarding the
parkway project costs. He noted the
voters approved a ballot measure authorizing the amendments to go forward, not
the parkway itself. He opposed the
amendments because related projects were delayed and needed connections would
not be built. He said there was not
enough money in TransPlan to build all the needed projects. He believed that Beltline/I-5 was a higher
community priority.
Ron Farmer,
3330 Bardell Avenue, Eugene, supported the parkway. He said the majority of voters did not support the arguments
offered by opponents to the WEP. He
asked the adopting officials to approve the amendments and respect the
vote. He said the hearing should be
about how to carry out the voters’ intent, rather than use technical arguments
to thwart the will of the people. He
said that the argument the vote was close flies in the face of the principles
the country was built upon. He noted
the close margins for the fire and library measures and asked if the reaction
would be the same. He said the voters
were not informed that their vote was advisory.
Becky Steckler,
2424 High Street, Eugene, opposed the amendments because she did not think they
met the goals of TransPlan in terms of an integrated land use/transportation
system, quality of life and economic opportunities, safety, environmental
responsibility, and sustainability. She
maintained that the parkway was in violation of Oregon’s land use laws, and the
project should be evaluated against existing criteria and existing plans.
Scott Olson,
411 High Street, Eugene, supported the parkway because it was needed and
appropriate infrastructure. He believed
the findings prepared by staff were adequate to support the amendments.
Mayor Torrey called for a ten-minute recess. Following the recess, testimony recommenced.
Jan Spencer,
212 Benjamin Street, Eugene, noted national projections of road congestion even
if more capacity was built. He believed
the parkway was in conflict with numerous State planning goals. He said the Oregon Highway Plan identified
new road construction as a last priority.
He believed insufficient alternatives that had been studied for the
parkway. An analysis of alternatives
should take into account changes made to land use planning in the
community. The parkway did not respond
to the new needs. He said people drive
more at the periphery because they have farther to go to get where they
need. Those people need better services
where they live. He said that Eugene’s
nearby communities should foster economic development so residents can work
there. Mr. Spencer submitted written
testimony.
Larry Reed,
722 Country Club Road, Eugene, believed the opponents were wrong in asserting
the parkway was illegal. He said that
federal and State regulations permit the fill of wetlands out of recognition
that such an activity was sometimes necessary.
He noted the requirements that existed for mitigation. He suggested human needs may take priority
over saving every wetland and every plant.
Mr. Reed said the WEWP remained unaffected, and the parkway would not change
the community’s commitment to preserving wetlands. Both wetlands preservation and economic development could be
accommodated. The SEIS found the
northern route less impactful than the former route. He said the path of the parkway was not a pristine wetlands. It was along an existing railroad
right-of-way separating the wetlands.
Mr. Reed submitted written testimony.
Jerry Smith,
5041 Saxton Way, Eugene, opposed the parkway because it would negatively impact
the WEWP area. He called on those
adopting officials who would benefit from the parkway not to vote on the issue. He called for preservation of what he termed
“the wetlands park.” Mr. Smith
criticized the cost of the parkway and suggested it would not be used by
ordinary citizens. He believed the
parkway project would violate the LWCF policy related to disposal. He thought the cost too high.
Justin Wright,
722 Country Club Road, Eugene, supported the parkway. He thought it important to find a balance between natural
resource protection and urban development.
If the parkway was not built, the economy would suffer and even more
miles would be driven. Youth of the
community would move out of town for other jobs. He said that wetlands can be legally filled, and exceptions had
been designed to allow for such fill.
Lauri Segal,
120 West Broadway, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, opposed the parkway because of its
cost and because it was not a solution to transportation issues in west
Eugene. She noted the impact on the
wetlands. She said the project violated
State and federal regulations. She
called for a community effort to identify alternatives to the parkway. Ms. Segal submitted written testimony.
Andy Peters,
66 East 6th Avenue, said the parkway would be good for business, and
would help give Eugene the infrastructure it needed to be vibrant. He noted the vote in support of the parkway
and asked the adopting officials to honor his vote and the vote of the majority
of residents and to move the project forward.
Mary O’Brien,
3525 Gilham Road, submitted written testimony.
She showed the adopting officials a map showing the property owned by
the West Eugene Wetlands Partnership.
She opposed the parkway because it would continue a historic pattern of
wetlands destruction.
Melinda Dille,
Eugene, said that west Eugene residents need the parkway. She said that growth largely had occurred in
the west part of the community. She
said improved traffic flow was needed for residents and the businesses in the
area. It was needed for safety reasons;
she had had a traffic accident in the area.
She noted the difficulty emergency vehicles had in moving through the
area. She asked that the parkway be
moved forward to fruition.
Mr. Simmons left the meeting.
Bob O’Brien,
3525 Gilham Road, believed the adopting officials were honoring the vote. He endorsed the recommendation of the Eugene
Planning Commission. He was opposed to
the parkway because it would disturb the hydrology of the wetlands and impact
the ability of animals to move through the area. The parkway would dominate the wetlands. He believed the project was contrary to the
goals of the WEWP. Mr. O’Brien said
that the process did not conform with the adoption process outlined in that
plan.
Jim Welsh,
90050 Killian Lane, Lane County Association of Realtors, said that the parkway
was long- planned for in recognition of regional transportation needs and to
facilitate transportation through the area.
He noted that a large majority of trips moving through the corridor were
through trips ending outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). He said that State land use planning
required all entities to plan for the future using established guiding
principles. Local planning must
coincide with regional and statewide planning.
He said that the Transportation Planning Rule identified as a need the
movement of people and goods through and out of the state. The parkway served that larger need. He noted that the Oregon Highway Plan
classified the parkway as a State highway intended to provide interregional
mobility and connections to larger areas.
Emily Fox,
455 East 34th Avenue, sang a song of opposition to the parkway to
the adopting officials.
Keith Nastiuk,
551 Montara Street, supported the parkway, and asked the adopting officials to
maintain the trust of the voters.
Sharon Blick,
2579 Kincaid Street, Eugene, submitted written testimony in opposition to the
parkway. She had supported the WEWP
because mitigation was proposed to occur in a large roadless area. The route of the parkway passed through a
large section of protected wetlands.
Construction of the parkway would mean that mitigation was a sham. She believed supporters of the parkway were
financially motivated, and opponents were motivated by the love of the
wetlands.
Gary Wildish,
2424 Quince Street, Eugene, noted that
his children were all professionals who did not live in Eugene. He supported the parkway as a needed element
of the transportation system. He said
that the parkway was long planned for and was included in numerous acknowledged
plans. He pointed out that there was a
railroad already in the proposed alignment of the parkway. He noted the successful parkway vote and
the voters’ rejection of a ballot measure proposing alternatives. He called for approval of the
amendments.
Rob Handy,
455-½ River Road, Eugene, submitted written testimony. He opposed the parkway because he believed
its construction would break many laws.
He averred information was not made available to the public and “closed
door meetings” were occurring. He said
that citizens should have more time to speak.
He believed voters were mislead by proponents in terms of funding. He believed the project was not funded. Mr. Handy said he was assured by various
adopting officials that the funding was in place. He maintained his neighbors wanted to know why the Beltline project
was cancelled if the money was there.
He asked why a new SEIS was not being done to account for new
information. He asked why Mr. Papé did
not recuse himself because of his ownership of a highway equipment
dealership.
Kari Westlund,
115 West 8th Avenue, Lane County Convention and Visitors
Association, Eugene, expressed the association’s support for the parkway. She said the association recognized the loss
of wetlands but believed it was needed.
Accessibility from west Eugene was difficult. People coming from the west often bypass the center because it
was difficult to reach.
Shawn Boles,
105 North Adams Street, Eugene, opposed the parkway because it would cost too
much and would affect the wetlands. He
endorsed the recommendation of the Eugene Planning Commission, averring it was
the only commission that looked at the issues in-depth. He said that things had changed since the
parkway was initially contemplated. He
believed there were alternatives, and suggested one was for the jurisdiction to
ask the planning commissions to work together to pursue the LUTRAQ (Land Use,
Transportation, Air Quality) approach used in Portland. Mr. Boles suggested that those with any kind
of financial interest in the issue declare a conflict of interest.
Dave Sohm,
727 Mountain View Drive, said the Eugene Planning Commission did not represent
the majority of citizens. He said the
parkway was needed to overcome the anti-business perception people had of the
community. The commissioners reflected
attitudes in wards 1, 2, and 3, while wards 5, 6, and 7 were not represented on
the commission. Councilors supporting
the parkway were recently elected by wide margins. He said his daughter had been unable to find a good paying job in
Eugene. He asked that the parkway be
supported to facilitate economic development.
Julie Hulme,
455-½ River Road, called for a long-term approach to transportation issues in
west Eugene. She asked the adopting
officials to reject the parkway and protect the uniqueness of the region for
future generations and all species. She
noted the historic loss of wetlands in Eugene using a display aid. She believed the parkway would be expensive
and would add to the congestion in the community.
Roxie Cuellar,
Homebuilders Association of Lane County, said that Florence members expressed a
desire to have the parkway built, and they would submit written testimony to
that effect. She spoke to the Goal 3
and Goal 4 exceptions that would be needed.
She said that the findings that were prepared by ODOT were well-written,
and she recommended that the adopting officials read the document. She said the Eugene Planning Commission had
argued that the exception would spur undesired development beyond the UGB. She said the reality was, that would be very
difficult to accomplish. If development
occurred in west Eugene, it would be because the adopting officials approved
it.
D. Judith Henshel, 2622 Edison Street, Eugene, discussed traffic conditions on Roosevelt
Boulevard in support of her remarks that the parkway was not needed. She asked that all alternatives be fully
researched before a final decision was made.
She advocated for creative solutions.
Kathy Madison,
1200 High Street, spoke to the Eugene Planning Commission’s opposition to the
parkway on the basis of Section 3.14 of the WEWP. She said that the section merely directed local governments to
take action to protect land after it was acquired, and it did not assure
protection. She said that Section 3.14
was not an obstacle for designating planned transportation corridors. She believed that the section was taken out
of context, and that it did not prohibit designation of the planned
transportation corridor. She said the
project should respect the plan when relevant, and other plans as well. She said that there were other plans that
would be affected. She called for a
broader look at the issue involved and urged the adopting officials to take the
vote into consideration.
Robert Emmons,
40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, noted the growth that occurred in
west Eugene since he moved to town. He
believed that growth was a matter of choice.
He said that the parkway would facilitate sprawl and lead to the destruction
of farms and open space between Eugene and Veneta. He noted the wetlands that would be affected by the parkway. Mr. Emmons urged the adopting officials to
listen to the citizens who did not vote for the parkway and reject the project.
Ward Beck,
2502 Highland Street, Eugene, urged approval of the amendments and asked his
councilor, David Kelly, to follow the will of the voters. He encouraged Ms. Morrison to support the
parkway as well.
Nena Lovinger,
40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, opposed the parkway, saying other
projects were more deserving. She
thought the road would promote sprawl and require the construction of other
projects at taxpayer costs. She noted
the maintenance funding needs that existed on Oregon roadways. She asked that the community focus on fixing
what it already had. She said that the funding
available was not adequate at either the State or local level, and projects
that she considered nonessential, such as the parkway, should not be
built.
Doug Weber,
1330 Flintridge Avenue, Eugene, supported the parkway. He said all projects have problems to
overcome. He believed that the problems
facing the parkway could be resolved.
He suggested that the Eugene council avoid micromanaging the issue, and
take a larger vision of the issues that extended into the future. He thanked past councils and commissions
with the vision to build needed transportation facilities. He hoped that vision included a safe
community, and a convenient transportation system for all of Lane County. He also wanted that vision to include an
efficient arterial network for those who had yet to come to Eugene. Mr. Weber hoped Eugene would become known as
a place where the adopting officials honored and respected the vote of the
people.
Robin Irish
was not present when called on to speak.
Edward Winford
was not present when called on to speak.
Jan Nelson
was not present when called on to speak.
Leslie Scott,
3977 Dillard Road, Eugene, asked the adopting officials to keep in mind the
City of Eugene’s adopted Growth Management Study policies. She believed the parkway violated those
policies. She believed the parkway
would violate the UBG and promote sprawl.
She said the parkway would facilitate construction like Target and
Wal-Mart. The parkway violated policies
related to transportation and land use, and increased use of alternative
modes. The parkway would not support
infill or density.
Michael Capriel
was not present when called on to speak.
Erik Jensen,
2233 Marjorie Avenue, Eugene, urged the adopting officials to adopt the
amendments needed to facilitate construction of the parkway. He said that those calling for further
studies should be honest about their agendas and the fact they do not support
the parkway. He said the parkway was
approved by the voters twice. Speaking
to those who argued the voters did not know what they were voting for, he
pointed out the alternative measure was soundly defeated, showing the public
knew what it was voting for.
David Monk,
3720 Emerald Street, Eugene, noted the divided sentiment in the community about
the parkway. He did not believe that
BLM would provide the needed waiver to the nondisposal policy, meaning that the
money spent on the process would be wasted.
He said the parkway was not a solution to transportation problems in
west Eugene. He perceived no congestion
problems in west Eugene. He called for
“real transportation solutions in west Eugene.”
George Poling,
3177 Queens East, Eugene, City Councilor-Elect for Ward 4, said that in his
campaign he had talked to many people about the parkway, and the overwhelming
majority supported the construction of the parkway. He said that people were tired of a small, nonelected vocal
minority telling the community what they think is best. He said Ward 4 voters favored the
parkway. Mr. Poling said there were
many reasons the parkway should be built; the funding was available and would
be lost if the project was not built; the parkway would facilitate planned
development, and provide needed connections.
He said the parkway would keep heavy traffic off West 11th
Avenue and West 18th Avenue.
He said the adopting officials should respect the will of the
voters.
Mayor Torrey called for a five-minute recess.
Mr. Kelly expressed concern that the record was not
going to be left open for a sufficiently long period.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved that the
City of Eugene keep the public record open for two weeks.
Responding to a question from Mayor Torrey, Ms. Childs
said that it would be difficult to get the testimony indexed and distributed to
the council in time for its work session on June 19. Mr. Kelly indicated willingness to accept the information
unindexed to facilitate the process.
The motion failed, 5:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Taylor, and Ms.
Bettman voting yes.
Mayor Torrey called for further testimony.
Alan Stein,
1049 Almaden Street, Eugene, opposed the parkway. As a downtown business owner, he believed the parkway represented
a bad business decision, and it would not lessen congestion on West 11th
Avenue. He called on the Eugene council and mayor to take into consideration
the greater good of the community. He
believed the community had been mislead by the proponents of the parkway in
terms of its benefits and the availability of funding. Construction of the parkway would postpone
several important, needed projects. He
feared that if the parkway went forward, only a section would be
constructed. He urged the Eugene
council to oppose the project.
Debra Jeffries,
3800 North Delta Highway, Eugene, urged the adopting officials to approve the plan
amendments. She said the findings
supported the passage of the amendments.
She believed the parkway was important to the community’s economic
health. She hoped that in the future,
the council would not choose to confuse the issue by putting forth competing
ballot measures. She said that the
process was costly for both proponents and opponents and it did not result in
any real guidance.
Maeve Sowles,
30495 Fox Hollow Road, Eugene, representing the Lane County Audubon Society,
noted the society’s support for the WEWP.
She noted the many agencies and organizations involved in the WEWP
partnership and the fact it served as a national model. She noted that birdwatching was good
business and a tourist draw. She
opposed the parkway because of its impact on the wetlands. She thought the parkway redundant and
unnecessary. She said the wetlands area
served many positive functions and was a space for rare butterflies and for
birds.
Eric Forrest,
2145 Elkhorn Road, Eugene, said that as a member of the Budget Citizen
Subcommittee he was aware of the backlog of road maintenance needs. There was
currently a lack of dollars to support such projects. He said that it was rare there was funding for a project already
identified. He noted the effort and
money that had gone into planning for the parkway, and that the first phase was
already included in the State’s plans and the funding allocated. He said the parkway was the project ODOT
wanted to fund. Funding decisions for
future phases would be made as time passed.
He said that the parkway would help relieve the use of arterials that
were being degraded by overuse. Mr.
Forrest asked the adopting officials to respect the vote of the public. He believed the findings demonstrated the
parkway was viable and feasible.
Bob Cassidy,
1401 East 27th Avenue, Eugene, discounted the importance of the vote
to the decision at hand. He said that
the majority of votes was insignificant.
He said that building a road because of a vote of the people was
“crazy,” even if the majority had been larger.
There were other facts to consider.
He said that the jobs in Eugene were going to people living outside the
community, and now it was being proposed to spend money to make that even more
possible. He said that no one was talking
about trains or buses to serve those communities. He said that voting for the parkway would be to promote division.
Rusty Rexius,
86301 Panorama Road, Pleasant Hill, Vice President of Rexius Forest Byproducts,
said that there was a congestion problem on West 11th Avenue that
needed to be fixed. He asked the
adopting officials to make the right decisions, and indicated support for the
findings developed by staff. He said
that he was a third-generation local business owner in the community, and future
business owners need the help of the adopting officials to make Eugene an
economically viable community.
Mara Wile,
1347 Dalton Street, Eugene, objected to discussions of the vote because those
living in the unincorporated area of River Road/Santa Clara did not get to
vote. She opposed the parkway because
it would affect other transportation priorities and the money was not
there. She urged the adopting officials
to disqualify the vote because not all those affected got to vote. She said that money should be spent to fix
existing roads, such as Beltline.
Tom Slocum,
1950 Graham Drive, supported the parkway.
He called on the Eugene council to respect the vote. He did not consider the vote to be advisory,
as was asserted by some. He pointed out
that the competing measure was soundly defeated by the voters. He acknowledged the parkway would affect
wetlands but thought the impact could be mitigated. He said that the divisive issue before the community was a
question of growth. Some want no growth
at all, but people want to move to the community. He said that over the past two years he perceived a dismantling
of the planning process. He said that
without planning, growth would be chaotic.
Peter Lark
was not present when called on to speak.
Sue Wolling
was not present when called on to speak.
Celia Levine
was not present when called on to speak.
Majesta Seese-Green, 549 Van Buren Street, noted the opposition to the parkway represented
by the vote in the Whiteaker neighborhood.
She opposed the parkway because of its costs and its affect on
neighborhood livability. She noted her
preference for the LUTRAQ approach. She
said that the parkway would create traffic problems in her neighborhood because
she feared 6th/7th avenues would become a freeway. Pedestrian traffic would be more difficult
in the Whiteaker neighborhood. She
believed the parkway would generate sprawl, affecting all residents, and would
mean the “death of downtown” and the “death of Whiteaker.”
Dan Montgomery,
Eugene, asked the adopting officials to listen to the voters and not
second-guess their understanding of the issue.
The voters understood what they were voting for. He said that the ballot measure was intended
to end the controversy over the 1986 vote.
Voters were not told the vote was nonbinding. Mr. Montgomery said the community should take advantage of the 20
years of planning that went into the parkway and proceed with the project. The project was identified in many planning
documents, and the need for the parkway was established in several technical
documents. He noted the support voiced
for the parkway by the Lane County and Springfield advisory bodies, and the
funding for the first phase included in the STIP. In the absence of the parkway, congestion would continue to be a
problem on West 11th Avenue.
He said that if the amendments were not approved the investment made to
this point would be lost.
Scott Crawford
was not present when called on to speak.
Lisa Kennedy
was not present when called on to speak.
Misha Seymour,
1313 Lincoln Street, Apartment 306, opposed the parkway because of its impact
on the wetlands. He called for spending
on affordable housing and for free buses.
He asked that the amendments be rejected.
Terry Connelly,
1401 Willamette Street, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of
the amendments and urged the adopting officials to approve them. He said the staff findings were thorough and
compelling. Speaking to the TransPlan
amendment, he agreed with the Eugene commissioners’ decision that the community
vote represented a new or amended community policy. He said that the amendments were the logical by-product of a new
community policy, which was the result of the council going to the voters. He did not think the goals and policies of
TransPlan needed to be changed to accommodate the parkway. He said that TransPlan was adopted with full
knowledge the entire parkway would be constructed. The project was intended to be a phased project. The amendments were consistent with the
plan’s goals and policies. He noted the
inclusion of the parkway in acknowledged adopted plans.
Dean Bishop,
28335 West 11th Avenue, opposed the parkway because of the direct
impact it would have on his property and the impact it would have on the entire
community and future generations, particularly children, through the loss of
wetlands. He spoke of the benefits of
open spaces to children. He said that
there were also funding questions to be considered.
David Hauser,
2168 Elkhorn Drive, Eugene, representing the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce,
encouraged the adopting officials to approve the proposed amendments. He supported much that had been said in
support of the parkway. He said the
findings developed by staff supported the amendments. He noted calls for a LUTRAQ process and stated that the solutions
used in Portland were not appropriate for Eugene. He pointed out that light rail was vital to that solution. He said that in terms of the close nature of
the vote, the competing ballot measure asked the voters if they wanted to
pursue the LUTRAQ approach, and they overwhelming rejected it. Mr. Hauser said that contrary to testimony,
the projects not included in the TransPlan list were not cancelled, they were
postponed. He said that all projects
could be considered by the OTC when it considered the STIP again in two
years. None of the projects postponed
had the public input the parkway enjoyed.
He suggested that the community work together to find funding for those
projects.
Robin Levine,
115 Crocker Lane, said she never owned a car and was proud of that fact. She said cars were not healthy for the
community. She maintained that cars
contributed to cancer and asthma. She
called for a new approach to community building. She said that people come to Eugene for its greenness, and to
breath the fresh air. She called on
older adults to take classes about the value of the environment, and what
affects pollution had on all people.
Roger Bennett,
240 Highway 101, City of Florence, expressed support for the parkway. He said the parkway was not a neighborhood
project but a regional project. It was
in his community’s interest to see the parkway constructed. He said that Florence was interested in the
project for economic, governmental, sociological, health, and convenience. Everything Florence did had a connection to
the metropolitan area. He urged the
adopting officials to approve the amendments.
Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing, and said the
record would be open for one additional week.
The Eugene council would next consider the issue on June 19 in the
McNutt Room.
Commissioner Dwyer adjourned the meeting of the Lane
Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Leiken adjourned the meeting of the Springfield
council and noted the council would meet to discuss the issue on Monday, June
30, 2002.
Ms. Wylie closed the public hearing for LTD and noted
its next meeting on the topic was scheduled for June 17, 2002.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
R:\2002\Joint\Elected Officials\jeo020529m1.wpd