CC Minutes - 06/18/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sorenson stated the Board of Commissioners had agreed when they set the second reading to ask questions but they wouldn't be taking any action other than to roll it over. He asked about the purpose of the Eugene Springfield Metro General Plan and the reason for involvement of either the City of Eugene or Lane County in this matter Mott responded a goal exception that is a higher standard of a post acknowledgment plan amendment is set apart from other plan amendments by the agreement of the three jurisdictions. He added most of the goal exceptions that occur within the plan boundary are going to be Lane County's responsibility on the resource lands. He said when they do an urban growth boundary amendment, they almost always have to do a goal exception because they are including resource land inside the urban growth boundary. He commented this was unique to the Willamette Greenway and it is established in the Administrative Rules that this has to be done. He said the plan says that all three jurisdictions must agree to a goal exception and since state law says the plan needs to be amended when they take a goal exception, all three have to participate. Sorenson asked how this related to TransPlan and if they have to bring in the other TransPlan partners to amend TransPlan to undertake an investment of federal funds within a fifty year period and why it is not included in the constrained list or future list. He explained the question asked was specific to the I-5 crossing of the McKenzie River. Mott understood the Willamette River crossing is in TransPlan, but it was identified as a more significant project than bridge replacement because it discusses the potential for an interchange at that site. He didn't think the McKenzie River was in TransPlan. Sorenson asked if they would have to build out the constrained list before funding projects to allow the federal or state government to fund projects in a future list. Mott stated that the STIP needed to be amended in order to fund the project and that the OTC amended the STIP when they funded the project. He stated he was referring to the detour bridge, not the replacement bridge. He noted there are other processes that will occur for the replacement bridge. He added it was an unusual circumstance and not something they thought would occur. Sorenson commented a park was involved and possible federal funding to build a federal facility across a parkland. He asked what ODOT's view was around the 4F issue. Bonnie Heitsch, Department of Justice, explained the detour would be fully funded with state funds so it doesn't invoke the federal 4F requirements. She added the replacement bridge would be funded with federal funds and thereby through the NEPA process the replacement bridge would be subject to the 4F requirements. Sorenson asked how long the detour bridge would be temporary. Heitsch responded the design life is expected to be ten years. Page 5 - Joint BCC/Springfield and Eugene City Council Public Hearing - June 18, 2003 WD bc/m/03060/T