August 9, 2000
Eugene Hilton Hotel
66 E. 6th St., Eugene
1. CONTINUED DISCUSSION/THIRTEENTH READING AND DELIBERATION Ordinance PA 1132 Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan to Adopt a Revised Transportation Element and Related Changes to the Plan Text; Adopting Revisions to the Eugene-Springfield Transportation System Plan (TransPlan); and Adopting a Severability Clause (NBA & PM 9/8/99, 9/29/99, 10/20/99, 12/1/99, 1/25/00, 2/15/00, 3/14/00, 3/28/00, 4/11/00, 5/2/00, 6/27/00 & 7/12/00).
Call to Order
Mayor Jim Torrey called the meeting to order. Present from the City of Eugene: Scott Meisner, Betty Taylor, Pat Farr, Nancy Nathanson, Jim Torrey, Bobby Lee, Gary Pape, Gary Rayor, David Kelly
Commissioner Peter Sorenson called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to order. Present from the Board of Commissioners: Bill Dwyer, Bobby Green, Sr., Anna Morrison and Cindy Weeldreyer
City of Springfield Councilor Anne Ballew called the meeting of the Springfield City Council to order. Present from the Springfield City Council: Christine Lundberg, Sid Leiken, Tammy Fitch and Lyle Hatfield.
Pat Hocken of the Lane Transit District called the meeting of the Lane Transit District to order. Present: Rob Bennett, Dave Kleger and Gerry Gaydos.
Sorenson requested a motion to set the 14th Reading of PA 1132 to September 6.
MOTION: to approve a 13th Reading and Deliberation and Setting a 14th Reading and Deliberation of PA 1132 for September 6.
Green MOVED, Morrison SECONDED.
Approval of Minutes:
MOTION: to approve the Minutes of the Joint Elected Officials Meeting of July 12, 2000.
Morrison MOVED, Dwyer SECONDED.
VOTE: Unanimous by all jurisdictions.
Tom Schwetz, LCOG, passed out a revised Table One that more accurately portrayed what happened at the last meeting. He noted the table was organized by the two attachments on July 12, Attachment 3 (non-policy text changes) and Attachment 4 (single agency issues). On Attachment 3, he said Eugene removed Issues 4 and 7 and voted unanimously to approve the modified package. He added Issue 4 was not approved as part of the package but it was approved with modifications suggested by Rob Bennett. He noted Issue 7 was approved separately.
Schwetz reported that Lane County had removed Issues 4, 6 and 7 from Attachment 3 and they approved Issue 4 and they will be taking up the remaining issues at a future meeting.
Schwetz reported that the Lane Transit District and the City of Springfield took an action similar to the City of Eugenes.
Regarding Attachment 4, Schwetz said the City of Eugene removed Issue 4 from Attachment 4 and approved a modified package and separately approved Issue 4. He said the Lane Transit District and Springfield did the same. He noted that Lane County removed Issue 4 from Attachment 4 and voted 2-2, so the motion failed, though they approved Issue 4 separately.
Sorenson read the item into the record.
Jim Carlson, City of Eugene, stated the first item was 14.1, a new finance policy. He noted it was a policy suggested by the City of Eugene. He said the request is a new finance policy for local jurisdictions seeking changes in current restriction in county, state and federal transportation funding.
Jan Childs, City of Eugene, explained that part of the material that was received by the jurisdictions, was suggestions for three new finance policies. She said a policy originally suggested including a policy committee to rescind gas tax restrictions. She noted because the issue was around revenue shortfalls, the Eugene City Council recommended a broader new finance policy.
David Kelly, Eugene City Councilor, stated it was a broad policy that explained (in light of shortfalls in various categories), each jurisdiction wanted to have local control of funding sources.
Carlson noted that Eugene preferred Option 1 and everyone else preferred Option 2.
Torrey suggested putting it aside until the next meeting.
Sorenson was unsure as to what the policy was. Dwyer concurred with Sorenson.
Lyle Hatfield, Springfield City Council, stated that he supported the intent.
Rob Bennett, LTD, said that given the recent vote on using state tax funds to fund the Highway Patrol on state highways, it is wheel spinning. He said putting this in would not be productive.
Pat Farr, Councilor, City of Eugene, supported a more regional metropolitan-wide approach to the spending of the federal funds.
Torrey asked that 14.1 be placed on the September meeting.
On 14.2, New Finance Policy Number 3, Carlson said it was proposed by the City of Eugene to support full funding of bicycle project capital, operations, and maintenance as identified in TransPlan.
Gary Rayor, Eugene City Council, explained the intent is to ensure there is adequate funding for bicycle projects on the restrained list. He noted the bicycle component of TransPlan was only $20 million out of approximately $1.6 billion. He said because it was such a small component, they thought it would be proper to have a financial statement that would fund bicycle paths so it would not be an issue at a later time
Ballew noted there was such a direct relationship between TransPlan financing and gas taxes there was not enough money to finance what was needed to be done.
Betty Taylor, Councilor, City of Eugene, stated bicycles would do more to achieve the stated goals of TransPlan than road maintenance. She said it would save more money if more people rode bikes as there would be fewer lanes on the highway and less money spent in maintenance.
Lyle Hatfield, Councilor, City of Springfield, stated that full funding means committing a dollar stream without any flexibility. He could not support locking up funds for a process that was not part of their regular budget process. He wanted to support a complete bicycle system.
MOTION: to approve 14.2, New Policy No. 3.
VOTE: not approved, to be put onto the September list.
Carlson reported the next item is 14.3, another new finance policy suggested by the City of Eugene. He noted it was more complicated, adding a new policy that maintains transportation performance and improves safety by improving system efficiency and management before adding capacity. He added there is a definition and intent statement that adds a description of when the priority measures would take place as well as protecting the existing system, improving the efficiency and capacity of existing transportation facilities; adding capacity and new facilities to the system. He noted they were voting on adding the new policy and the definition of the intent statement to prioritize the expenditure of funds.
MOTION: to approve 14.3, adding Option 1.
VOTE: Carlson reported that Eugene and Lane County agreed to add Option 1 and LTD and Springfield were not in favor of it.
Scott Meisner, Councilor, City of Eugene, explained the policy directs how they prioritize how monies are spent, including improving efficiency and capacity. He added they are priorities, not strict rules.
Bill Dwyer, Commissioner, Lane County, concurred with Meisner. He said it is a reality check that keeps them focused on what they can do. He said it is a good policy and supported Option 1.
Hocken asked where bus rapid transit fits in the list of priorities.
Meisner responded the local share of the bus rapid transit would be a second priority that would be improving efficiency and capacity to the existing transportation facilities. He noted it was on Attachment 14 b.
Weeldreyer asked where the Jasper Road extension and Pioneer Parkway projects were located with the policy.
Carlson noted the Jasper Road extension had already been programmed, but for Pioneer Parkway, it was not in a CIP and findings would have to be adopted to meet criteria.
Hatfield noted in Springfield they had two important projects: Jasper Road and the Pioneer Parkway extension. He noted it falls under Number 4 and that nothing tells them what findings are to be determined. He didnt want to be in a position in TransPlan where they have to deal with challenges they may not be able to overcome in taking care of the transportation system. He noted they might need to look at accommodating growth as being the first issue. He did support the priorities.
Christine Lundberg, Councilor, City of Springfield, echoed Hatfield. She was concerned about a policy that adds a diversion to the funding stream. She didnt want to be precluded from moving forward because they added a policy that will prevent them from moving forward because of criteria that needed to be met.
Kelly said if there was interest from the jurisdictions, there would be work on the language to make sure that it is understandable. He noted it is a fiscally conservative policy. He recognized that other issues may be a high priority. He said what it explains is that if they will not be spending the cheapest dollar and maintaining the current system, but moving up a higher priority project, an explanation was needed as to why a project is being moved up.
MOTION: Carlson stated they voted on Option 1, to accept or not accept.
REVOTE: He reported there was no consensus so this would be put onto the September list.
Torrey reported that if at the September meeting they couldnt come to consensus, the issue will be taken to MPC.
Carlson reported on Issue 15 a. 1, that the change is the addition of the language recommended by the City of Eugene to add the words in conjunction with the overall transportation system."
MOTION: to approve the addition of language to Issue 15 a. 1.
VOTE: Carlson said that three jurisdictions agreed to the change, with Springfield declining support.
Kelly reported this came out of public testimony, and although the Eugene City Council did not agree, they realized it was important to point out that issues of multi-modal connection are important.
Ballew recalled it did not have to be there as nothing was added to change it.
Hatfield asked why they were changing it.
Nancy Nathanson, Councilor, City of Eugene, said that overall the transportation system was meant to indicate things in addition to roads, including air, and off-road bike paths. She encouraged staff to include the other modes.
Carlson asked the Springfield representatives if it made a difference if they changed "in conjunction with" the overall transportation system, recognizing the needs of other transportation nodes.
Tammy Fitch, Councilor, City of Springfield, said she could accept the compromise as they will put in something so it is not just a system.
Carlson said they would vote under the terms they had just discussed with Nathansons suggestion and Fitchs second.
MOTION: Carlson said they would consider Option 1 with adjusted language recommended.
REVOTE: The vote passed all jurisdictions.
Carlson discussed 15. A 2, a new roadway policy around access management. He said the recommendation from the City of Eugene was to add: Manage the roadway to preserve safety and operational efficiency.
Meisner noted there was no addition of a new policy, it changed the order of the four words.
Childs noted it was both a new policy that was included in the staff recommendation, not in the original TransPlan, to respond to testimony and a word change that was suggested by the Eugene City Council.
Schwetz said the policy that was presented was a new policy proposed coming out of the public testimony. He noted the Eugene City Council looked at this and recommended moving the words around. He added it was a new policy.
Kelly stated if they will make best use of the transportation facilities (a major arterial) that it is important that there is not a driveway every 100 feet or congestion would be increased. He added it is important to have policy developed around access management.
MOTION: to approve Option 1 for 15 a. 2.
VOTE: There was no consensus, this item will be brought back in September.
Carlson stated the next item was a change in the level of service policy. He noted there were three options: Option 1: modify the policy to use level of service E in all areas of the community except state highway facilities (proposed by the City of Eugene); Option 2: modify policy and definition and intent and proposed changes are provided in Attachment 15 b (proposed by the City of Springfield); and Option 3: do not change the level of service policy. He noted that LTD talked about no change, Lane County had discussed only the Eugene proposal and did not support and did not discuss the Springfield proposal.
Carlson said it was Springfields opinion that the level of service may be substandard and the local government jurisdiction may find that transportation systems need improvement to bring performance up to standard within the planning horizon
MOTION: to accept Option 2 of 15 a. 3.
VOTE: Carlson noted the tendency to Option 2.
Hatfield noted there were substantive issues with Option 2, that level of service D was a good planning horizon to look at with the exception of the downtown Eugene business district. He said they were not comfortable just saying level of service D was acceptable. He added there were certain circumstances where a level of service D would be acceptable.
Kelly said if they add up the dollars they have to spend, they wont be able to solve every level of service D issue. He added that level of service as a measure is a simplistic way to measure transportation efficiency. He said he would be more comfortable if the policy were structured around mobility, and trip time.
Lundberg agreed with Kelly. She said if they were looking at the quality of life and land use, they were trying to address siting at intersections and where pollution comes from.
Schwetz explained they are being asked to vote on changes to the actual policy language and definition and intent for the policy talks about the points Kelly was making, recognizing this is not the only thing that determines whether a particular intersection gets approved or not.
Kelly reported that the policy has a much stronger effect and there are a variety of ways to address it, but as long as the level of service is a measure, that will drive the profit, not time and travel. He added there are two issues: criteria that is the language that was modified and level of service. He suggested splitting them, level of service versus time of travel and then separately look at the Springfield criteria language.
MOTION: to reconsider Option 2.
REVOTE: Carlson noted there was acceptance with the issue.
Carlson explained issue 15 c. 1 was an I-5 interchange study suggested by the City of Eugene to add a project for a comprehensive study of I-5 interchanges to the study category in the 20-Year Financially Constrained Project List. He noted it added a study of all of the interchanges within the study boundary.
Kelly reported it came out of the councils discussion of the 30th Avenue, I-5 Interchange. He said they were looking at each of the I-5 interchanges that affects the metro area heavily.
Carlson noted the I-5-30th Avenue was still a project in TransPlan. He said it was not the intent to stop all interchange projects awaiting a study. He stated that ODOT was involved in an I-5 corridor study that would have looked at those issues in the corridor. He reported the study had been on hold because of the financial issues on the state level. He said this would put a project list in to restart the project in the Eugene/Springfield area.
Sorenson asked if the study was for the level of demand for the interchanges.
Kelly responded it was an attempt to gather background that was useful to everyone. He noted it was characterizing the system of I-5 through the metro area to make more informed decisions in the future.
Ballew said she would not add this. She didnt know what the region would get immediately.
Hatfield noted that Springfield had the highest priority project, the I-5 interchange at Beltline in the Gateway area. He said it was his concern if they get involved in a corridor study, all the work they had been doing gets put to the side until the corridor study is done. He said if he could be assured that that would not happen, he would support it. He added if there was a risk of Beltline-I-5 being sidelined until the corridor study is done, he would oppose it.
Morrison stated in reality ODOT doesnt have the money and wont find the money. She said to add this to the plan serves no purpose.
Meisner said the discussion came up in their council after they considered the TransPlan listings on I-5- Beltline, I-5 Franklin, McVey Highway, Glenwood and I-5 30th, without any analysis of how they work together.
Dwyer agreed the study should have taken place years ago. He was concerned with cost shifting, as the corridor study is the responsibility of the federal and state highway system.
MOTION: To vote on Option 1.
VOTE: There was not consensus, this will be put on the list for September.
Carlson reported issue 15 c. 2 was the Valley River Bridge. He said there are three options; Option 1, delete the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan project list and no further study would be conducted on a new river crossing in the area between Beltline and the Ferry Street Bridge. He noted it is the recommendation of the Eugene City Council. He said that Option 2 is to remove the Valley River Bridge from the project list and replace it with a study to evaluate the regional system of Willamette River crossing alternatives. He noted it was Lane County and LTDs recommendation and Springfield deferred to this meeting. He added Option 3 is not changing the project.
Regarding Option 1, Meisner said their objection was that this wasnt funding a study on how a new river crossing would fit into a coordinated transportation system. He said it was solely a new river crossing. He didnt know how it would fit into the system and there was no money for it. He noted they were being fiscally cautious and they will be looking comprehensively at a coordinated system.
Dave Kleger, Lane Transit District, reported this had troubled him for a long time. He said he lived in the Danebo area and there is no physical way to get to the Valley River Center from where he lives. He said in discussing this option, he had heard the existing resources are close to being maxed out, but there is no trend to dissuade people from trying to cross the river. He supported the study because investigation needed to be done.
Ballew asked if someone had done a study to determine where the Valley River Bridge would be. She was leery of adding money for studies if something had been done.
Schwetz responded a study was not performed and they did not site the bridge anyplace. He said it was assumed it would be placed in the general vicinity of the Valley River Center.
Hocken said LTD might want to look at building a bus bridge in conjunction with another project. She said they wanted to leave open the option to do a study and not be prohibited by the language in TransPlan.
Weeldreyer said Lane County and the Eugene City Council would honor the wishes of the people of Eugene who voted to not increase capacity through the Ferry Street Bridge corridor and look at another river crossing. She said knowing that there is a mandate to reduce vehicle miles traveled, means they have to provide access in the West Eugene area. She would support a study for those reasons.
Taylor noted that Option 1 did not prohibit any study, it just said a certain area would be in parkland of the Willamette Greenway.
Hocken responded if an agency wanted to put a bridge next to the Ferry Street Bridge, it would be prohibited by the geographic description of Eugenes motion.
Hatfield didnt want to preclude a study for a pedestrian or bicycle bridge. He said he would suggest leaving the Valley River Bridge in the project and leave the opportunity for a study open and unmandated.
Kelly recalled the motion came out of a specific request by the Lane County Commissioners to perform a study. He noted the second sentence of their option stated they didnt want to do a study at this time, between the Beltline and the Ferry Street Bridge. He added it was not the Eugene City Councils intent to include the sentence about no study in the TransPlan. He said his understanding would be to delete the Valley River Bridge project from the plan, whereas Lane Countys option would be to delete the bridge from the plan and replace it with a study.
Childs noted the Eugene City Council voted on the two items separately and it was originally presented as a single motion. She said it was two separate considerations.
Green said the Board of Commissioners went on record as being opposed to having the Valley River Bridge as part of the projects listed. He said they discussed having a study about a river crossing.
Dwyer said he was responding to people in Razor Park who may have been negatively impacted by the bridge. He said there are transportation problems and they wanted to be sensitive to the city council and to the citizens.
Taylor stated they did not ask to put the second sentence into TransPlan, but they agreed not to have anything in TransPlan about a study.
Torrey suggested voting on deleting the Valley River Bridge, independent of any other item. He asked if there should be a study of river crossings.
MOTION: To delete the Valley River Bridge from the TransPlan.
VOTE: There was unanimous support.
Kelly said TransPlan was supposed to be a transportation and land use plan over a 20-year horizon. He noted if they do land use things differently, the transportation patterns prevalent today may not be as prevalent 20 years from now. He suggested seeing how land use evolves. He was puzzled why there was not interest in doing a regional study of I-5 interchanges, while there was interest in doing a regional study of river crossings.
Nathanson noted when the motion was read, there was no time mentioned. She said the time frame was sometime within the 20-year lifespan of the plan. She stated it was wise to have that direction.
Dwyer stated it was a question of cost shifting, not whether a bridge was needed. He asked whose responsibility it was to pay for the I-5 corridor study and the river crossing. His objection to the I-5 was based on cost shifting and not that it was needed. He added if ODOT wanted to be pay for it, he would vote in favor. He said if it needs to come out of County resources and the responsibility shifted from ODOT to Lane County, he would be against it.
Torrey said if they support this, they would be supporting an evaluation study of regional river crossing alternatives within a 20-year time frame.
Ballew asked who would do the study and who pays for it.
Torrey responded all of the jurisdictions.
Rob Bennett, LTD, stated there was universal agreement that there was another crossing needed for all of the technical information they received on vehicle miles saved. He noted there was no discussion about where it would be located. He agreed with others that the connection with transportation in the community should consider river crossings.
MOTION: Considering an option to have a study on crossings.
VOTE: There was consensus by all jurisdictions.
Carlson reported that LTD lost their quorum at 8:00 p.m.
Carlson stated that 15 c. 3 is the Division Avenue Bridge. He noted there were three options: Option 1 to move it to the future list and modify the project description as follows: New frontage road with Willamette River bridge; preserve and protect access to adjacent sand and gravel (aggregate) Goal 5 resource lands for frequent heavy truck use and minimize to the greatest extent possible condemnation of those lands for the project. He said it was Lane Countys language. He said that Option 2 was to move to the future list but not adding Goal 5 language to the project description, retaining the existing description that reads: New frontage road with Willamette River bridge. He noted it would be in the future list but with the same project description. He added the second option was from the City of Eugene. He said Option 3 would not change the project.
Rayor noted there were no plans on any of these projects. He said that Beltline had Goal 5 lands under it. He said it would be hard to have a 40-foot deep pit next to the Beltline that was stable. He said to constrain a project will cause it to be a more expensive solution. He said it had to be incorporated into the record that there were concerns on the north east quadrant, but there are also concerns about the Metropolitan wastewater plant. He said it is a bad policy.
Weeldreyer said there are challenges that are present in trying to site Delta Sand and Gravel in a new area and how the community is quickly divided on that issue. She noted the road project would impact the way that Delta Sand and Gravel trucks get in and out. She said because they have such difficulty zoning and locating new places for the aggregate, they should do what they can to let Delta Sand and Gravel continue operating in that location. She said she would be supportive in leaving the Goal 5 language in.
Meisner said the Goal 5 analysis would be necessary. He said it is difficult to look at this issue without considering the Beltline Highway and Beaver Street issues. He said he favors Option 1 as the Goal 5 analysis is essential.
Dwyer concurred with Weeldreyer and Meisner.
Kelly said Option 2 does not force anyone to do anything. He said Option 1 forces a constraint on the design engineers for the projects. He noted by including the language in this project, Goal 5 analysis is a required state component of the design process. He added Option 2 would not preclude the designers from looking at a variety of opportunities.
MOTION: to accept Option 2.
VOTE: There was a difference of opinion.
Torrey requested to revote this on Option 1. He said if there is no decision, they would put it on the September list.
REVOTE: There was no consensus and it was put on the September list.
Carlson said with regard to 15 c. 4, Beaver Street, the language was the same as Division Avenue. He said Option 1 was an option to move it to the future list and include the same language or Option 2--move it to the future list but do not add Goal 5 language.
MOTION: to vote on Option 2.
VOTE: Option 2 was accepted by all jurisdictions.
Carlson said regarding the Beltline Highway, 15 c.5, Option 1 was to move it from the future list to the 20-year constrained list and modify the description to read: Construct six lanes to improve mobility and operations and conduct an EIS to determine ramp access to aggregate use parcels. He said Option 2 was to leave it on the future list but to add the same language about constructing six lanes. He said Option 3 was to not change the project. He noted the project is on the future list and it doesnt have language about the aggregate use parcels.
Hocken said the jurisdictions most interested in this decision are Eugene and Lane County. She noted they are in agreement on Option 1. She added the LTD Board and Springfield City Council had said initially that they would defer their decision to what Eugene and Lane County worked out.
MOTION: to approve Option 1.
VOTE: It was acceptable by all jurisdictions.
Regarding 15 c. 6, Option 1, Carlson said it was to revise the project at Beltline and I-5 as revised in the TransPlan Errata sheet with the estimated cost change to show a range with a maximum of $38.3 million and the revised project description to take out the other projects. He noted Option 2 was to not change the cost estimate of the project description. He said that Option 2 still retains the changes incorporated in the errata sheet.
Hatfield said his concern was the $38.3 million, when it would be built and capping the dollar amount.
Kelly said that either option puts a dollar figure on the project. He said the $38.3 million is what the project is currently budgeted at since the last TransPlan draft.
Schwetz said in an errata sheet that was handed out in September, broke out a combined project that included North Game Farm, Beltline East and Pioneer Parkway. He said that ODOT requested that they break the projects out into separate projects and that was done. He noted the result of the cost estimate for the plan was $38.3 million.
Kelly said it was important to make explicit in TransPlan that a range of options was being considered. He noted the $38.3 million implies they are considering one of the previous designs.
Dwyer said he doesnt like the maximum cap. He asked if the cap limited the options.
Schwetz said the intent was the $38.3 million as the engineers estimate of the project cost. He added it was not intending to be the maximum that would be spent on the project. He said the intent was to put a range in using the cost estimate in the plan at a high end.
Sid Leiken, Councilor, City of Springfield, said that 20% of all traffic comes off of I-5 to visit or stay in 1,500 hotel rooms. He said the word maximum is unacceptable. He said if something is built in the future, it will have to be updated and another cost estimate put in. He agreed with Dwyer to remove the word maximum so it could go forward.
Rayor stated he was for removing the word maximum or putting in estimated cost of $38.3 million because that was how all the other costs were presented in the document.
Hatfield said they need to keep a number in TransPlan to determine a financially constrained issue. He suggested dropping the word maximum and putting in a range with an initial estimate of $38.3 million.
Kelly said Option 2 suggested putting the $38.3 million in it. He said Option 1 would have a range of numbers in the column, there would be no word maximum that would appear in TransPlan.
Schwetz said they came up with a revised project 606, as revised in the Errata Sheet to show a range of estimated costs. He said that staff would develop that range of costs.
Tammy Fitch, Councilor, City of Springfield, stated unless they were going to do it for every project, she didnt want to start putting in ranges.
Schwetz mentioned the cost estimates that are listed for every project in TransPlan are not adopted as part of what is being adopted, they are estimated costs. He said there was no constraint meant by the language.
MOTION: to vote on Option 2, I-5 Beltline Project, with the amount in the column of $38.3 million.
VOTE: There was agreement by all jurisdictions.
Carlson said with 15.c. 7 I-5 Franklin Boulevard Interchange, Option 1 was to move it from the future list to the 20-year fiscally constrained plan. He said Option 2 was not changing the status as it was in the future list.
Meisner said they had run into a Catch 22, seeking federal support for this. He said they couldnt lobby effectively until they get it into TransPlan. He said the impact would be great on the City of Eugene. He noted that Franklin Boulevard is not a way people can enter into Eugene from southbound I-5. He said they are trying to find a way to make it happen.
MOTION: to vote for Option 1.
VOTE: There was agreement by all jurisdictions.
Carlson said 15 c. 8 stated there were no options on the West Eugene Parkway. He said during the Eugene City Council work session, a motion failed to delete the West Eugene Parkway from TransPlan and substitute a staff study of ways to provide traffic relief along West 11th. He said they asked for a discussion about the West Eugene Parkway.
Torrey said they were discussing whether to leave it in TransPlan. He noted that Rayor recused himself on this matter as there was a conflict of interest.
Carlson said the original motion was to delete the West Eugene Parkway from TransPlan.
Torrey said Option 1 suggests keeping it in TransPlan and Option 2 doesnt.
Kelly wanted to make sure people understood what they were getting for $17 million. He said there was a public vote 14 years ago that wanted to move ahead with the West Eugene Parkway on this alignment. He noted since that vote was taken, the parkway had been split into phases and the only thing in this 20-year plan was the center segment. He said they are not following the public vote in building the West Eugene Parkway, they are building a center segment, 1.3 miles of highway for $17 million and according to the LCOG model, it will reduce congestion on West 11th, in the year 2015 by eight percent. He said because the other segments are not in the 20-year plan, there are no assurances the other segments will ever be built and the benefits described in the packet may never happen.
Kleger noted his neighbors commented that the very idea of not doing this is offensive. He said the entire transportation system from where he lives (Bethel area) is based upon the assumption the bridge will be built.
MOTION: On Option 1, keeping the West Eugene Parkway in the plan as it currently is acceptable.
VOTE: There was agreement by all jurisdictions.
Carlson noted for the matters that did not come to consensus, each jurisdiction would need to develop language to get to passage by September.
Schwetz discussed the alternative measures and additional public review. He said the interest was getting a set of alternative measures that the jurisdictions thought would be acceptable for public review. He noted there are five bullets listed in the memo suggesting other alternative measures. He said there needs to be agreement from the group on what to put out for public review on alternative measures. He asked for additional measures to be put on the list for public review.
Schwetz stated the measures include four that staff put into the framework including drive alone mode share, use of alternative modes, a transit measure (proposed to be changed) and number of bikeway miles. He said on page 3 of the cover memo (copy in file) there are a percentage of households with access to ten minute weekday transit service bus rapid transit ridership, miles of BRT line completed, zoned for nodal development and number of residential units constructed in nodal areas. He said the list would be sent out for public review.
Schwetz said regarding public review, they listed three options: Option 1, to reopen the public record to accept written testimony, limited to alternative performance measures; Option 2, reopen the public record and accept written testimony limited to alternative performance measures and TransPlan policy changes, and Option 3 to reopen the public record to accept written testimony on performance measures, TransPlan polices and project changes. He said staff recommendation is Option 1, opening the written record for approximately 1-½ months through September 29 for input on the alternative performance measures.
MOTION: to approve Option 1.
VOTE: All jurisdictions approved.
There being no further business, Mayor Torrey adjourned the meeting of the Eugene City Council at 8:50 p.m.
There being no further business, Commissioner Sorenson adjourned the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners at 8:50 p.m.
There being no further business, Dave Kleger adjourned the meeting of the Lane Transit District at 8:50 p.m.
There being no further business, Springfield City Councilor, Anne Ballew adjourned the meeting of the Springfield City Council at 8:50 p.m.
to Board Notices