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

Home Browse Search

with this goal exception because he wanted to keep it simple and move it ahead to get the detour bridge built. Childs said there is a use permit being negotiated that would speak to the use of that as an access road, but the Willamette Greenway permit would not be required. Kelly noted the right-of-way map did not show the right- of-way south of the river and since the project impacts that area he wanted to see the diagram of the south side of the river. He asked if the change in flood impact had been examined. Mott responded that ODOT had applied for a fill permit in the floodway and they are processing that. He added they also submitted a land alteration permit. He said they are required to do different levels of analysis of the impact of the fill when it is in the floodway as opposed to just the floodplain. Kelly suggested keeping the amendment simple. He noted it was a condition of support for him to strike the future capacity language from the ordinance in the Metro Plan. He said they have no idea where or what the permanent bridge would be. He didn't want to approve it now. He added it was a lightweight process with so much money involved for the goal exception. He said it shouldn't be a burden to have public input. He liked the idea that the greenway exception gives the elected officials a chance to review the permanent bridge. He wanted to see language prepared that would eliminate the references to the permanent and the future. Lininger commented because no federal funding is involved in the construction that the detour bridge would not be required to have a NEPA process. He noted that NEPA requires an analysis of accumulative impacts. He thought the impacts caused by the detour bridge must be accounted for in the cumulative impacts analysis required in the ElS for the permanent bridge. He stated that they would be accountable for any environmental damage. He didn't want to proceed in such haste that problems are created before the NEPA permanent process. He was concerned because Oregon has heavier load limits than other western states. He saw the problem recurring if ODOT doesn't address the disparity of load limits in Oregon. He also wanted to insert language that would include within the scope of the Goal 15 exception any future capacity or safety improvements. Green asked if the request for this exception is precedent setting. He asked if anyone else in the state was doing this. Mott responded that Policy 13 is unique to Lane County. He noted it had been in place for a long time. He said the Administrative Rule applies to the entire reach of the Willamette that is subject to the Willamette River Green Goal and it specifically states that if it is not a water related or water dependent use, it requires a goal exception and it also identifies activities that are "not normally considered water related or water dependent" and that includes transportation facilities. He commented that ODOT was staying within its right-of-way except for some fill that would go onto Willamalane's property and they are getting an easement to do that. He Page 9 - Joint BCC/Springfield and Eugene City Council Public Hearing - June 18, 2003 WD bc/m/03060/T