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

Home Browse Search

Sorenson asked what other opportunities for public comment would be taking place. With regard to the permanent bridge structure, Hutch believed that ODOT would embark on a full ElS NEPA-type process. She noted there would be an extensive stakeholder involvement process that is tailored to meet individual community needs. She added from the NEPA process there is a draft document that will be prepared and there will be another opportunity for public testimony and comment and then a final document will be prepared. She noted in-between the draft and the final document, all necessary land use actions will need to be taken. She said at that point if there are necessary land use actions, then the hearings would occur and there would be public testimony and opportunity for involvement at that level. She explained with the 4F issue, the document would be prepared concurrently with the environmental NEPA document and there would be opportunity for comment and opinions as that document is prepared. She said the goal is to avoid the park altogether. She thought there could be ways to avoid or mitigate impacts. Bettman asked what the process would be if one or all jurisdictions wanted to amend the adoption ordinance. Mott stated they could add the map to the findings and if they want to amend the findings that it is part of the public hearing process. He noted the City of Springfield was not adopting this as an emergency ordinance, they are having a second reading on July 7 and they will take action that night. He thought it was okay to change the language in their ordinance, proposed in the Metro Plan text. He added that all three jurisdictions have to adopt the same Metro Plan and if not, it goes into conflict resolution mode. Bettman asked how this would be coordinated. Jan Childs, City of Eugene, explained they try to get some direction from the elected officials during this discussion process. She said there was a suggestion from the three planning commissions that the elected officials seriously consider deleting a clause from the proposed text if they got such direction from the elected officials tonight Then they could prepare revised ordinances, she said. She said they are staggering the adoption of this, with the host jurisdiction going first. She thought they could have a tentative approval and then come back to adopt an ordinance later. Bettman asked why the language of the exception includes the permanent bridge. She asked if the permanent bridge is eventually modified during the design process to reflect some of the projects they had heard, if that meant the permanent bridge project would already have an exemption. Mott responded the future bridge is included to allow the existing alignment to be used as a future bridge because the scope of the bridge didn't go beyond that alignment. He said it wasn't a matter of critical concern that that be included because the NEPA project would probably take Page 6 - Joint BCC/Springfield and Eugene City Council Public Hearing - June 18, 2003 WD bc/m/03060/T