Whilamut CPC, Alton Baker Park - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

points where it was closest to the river. He said that there was no sign of this occurring. Therefore, ac- cording to the City, widening the path to ten feet would be an easier fit at each edge. Mr. Sonnichsen asked that someone make a motion to send the letter to the City. Alternatively, the CPC could speak to Mr. Shoemaker, who was at the meeting. Ms. Behm said she wished to give more background information about the issue. The CPC had voted against construction on the path. At the January 27 meeting of the CPC, the group had discussed going to ODOT in Salem to ask them to stop funding this project. She was adamantly against the construction. Ms. Mello asked if Ms. Behm was referring to construction from the boat launch towards the east. Ms. Behm said that there was a proposal to upgrade, with federal funds channeled through ODOT grant funds, the bike path from the Defazio Bridge to the Frohnmayer Bridge. When the decision had been made not to go into the WNA, the proposal had been to stop construction at Leisure Lane. Some members of the CPC had gone to Salem and were told that the project would have to go through a public process. In her estimation, Public Works employees had a vision of the bike path being a high -speed path next to the river, and saw this as the first step of this vision. When they couldn't get all the way to the Frohnmeyer Bridge and the likelihood of going into the "A looked "dim," employees had decided to stop at the boat launch. She thought the more "noble" path would be to use the $300,000 somewhere else. She thought this project was "totally unnecessary." The CPC had recommended stopping at the boat launch. However, because the project had gone through the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC), a compromise had to be made. Now, the proposal was to have the same path, in the same place, with the same widening, with an additional two feet, for $290,000. Mr. Cooper said the CPC had also advocated for the main bike path to proceed through the boat launch parking lot and along the boat launch access road to Day Island Rd. Ms. Behm said that CPC members had taken a walk with two people from the City who had admitted this would be a high -speed bike path. She thought this was a terrible idea, given the POS maintenance yard, Nearby Nature and the Network Charter School on Leisure Lane. She thought this unneeded project was "ridiculous." The path was in great condition. Ms. Larison asked where the high -speed bike path was it supposed to go. Ms. Behm said that originally, the plan was to have a high -speed bike path along the river all the way to Springfield. Then, the path was deemed to have to stop at Frohnmeyer Bridge. This could not be done. Now the City said that they wanted a high -speed bike path from the DeFazio Bridge to Leisure Lane, and then on Leisure Lane. The City, in her estimation, did not wish to turn down the money and were there- fore moving forward on this "terrible project." Ms. Larison asked if the flexibility to change the project existed. Ms. Behm said that this flexibility no longer existed, but it could have earlier in the process. Mr. Hughes said that the path was fine – he had been there that day. He thought the proposed project was a "waste of money." He did not like idea of a high -speed path through there because it was a "high human traffic zone." Mr. Sonnichsen said that when CPC members were with Councilor Zelenka on Leisure Lane, it was very quiet. It had also been 6 p.m. He thought saying that Leisure Lane would be the "high -speed alternative" was a "sham." He did not think City planners believed this. He thought Leisure Lane was a pretext – no MINUTES— Citizen Planning Committee for the July 21, 2011 Page 4 Whilamut Natural Area