Laserfiche WebLink
council must address. It was political in that the council had policy tradeoffs to make and the <br />voters to consider. She questioned which of the findings was better suited to address the failure <br />of Measure 20-53. She did not believe the council had the money or voter approval to move <br />ahead with findings in support of the measure, rather than the parkway. She asked where that <br />point was addressed. Ms. Childs said that the commission had an extensive discussion of the <br />refinement plan amendment criteria and the findings were subsequently revised as a result of the <br />discussion; the commission concluded, by a vote of 4:3, that the criteria that applied was the new <br />or amended community policies, based on the vote that was taken; that information was provided <br />in the findings for both ordinances under the refinement plan criteria, TransPlan Exhibit C, <br />beginning on page 17. Mr. Belcher said the vote was 4:3 because the commission could not <br />agree if the policy was set by the council or the public. The commission subsequently concluded <br />that it did not make much difference. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr noted his long-time support for the parkway because he believed the environmental <br />issues raised could be addressed and the parkway would improve traffic conditions in west <br />Eugene. He said that most west Eugene residents agreed with him; it seemed to be south <br />Eugene residents who disagreed. He anticipated the council would hear many disingenuous <br />arguments on both sides of the issue, and urged that the council "cut through those" arguments. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor clarified the location of the findings in the packet with Ms. Childs. He asked for <br />information about the permitting process and natural resource agency involvement, asking if <br />there was a way to summarize the process and point to the agencies' input in the packet. He <br />thought it would be worthwhile to show the acreage tradeoff between the wetlands acreage <br />potentially affected by the parkway and wetlands to be mitigated. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor expressed interest in having information about the street connections to the west and <br />east of Beltline. He noted that parkway was to be a limited access road with limited driveways. <br />He noted that Phase 2 was intended to build a two-lane facility, and future phases would add <br />lanes, and said that should be made clear. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ thanked staff and acknowledged the work that had gone into the materials before the <br />council. He confirmed the recommendations of the Lane County and Springfield planning <br />commissions in support of the parkway. He said there appeared to be wetland vegetation in the <br />area north of the railroad tracks, but it did not seem to be significant vegetation or wildlife area. <br />Ms. Childs said that the map in question, which was produced at the time the Metro Plan was <br />acknowledged, was included in Attachment A. However, what was more relevant was the fact <br />that on April 18 the Division of State Lands issued its final order approving the November 2000 <br />WEWP incorporating the amendments made by Lane County and Eugene as a wetlands <br />conservation plan. That information superceded the wetland information in Map 3. Mr. Pap~ said <br />that it was his understanding the quality of wetlands was lower in the northern alignment. Ms. <br />Childs said that was the case. She confirmed a statement from Mr. Pap~ that the land, if in <br />private hands, could be in farm use currently. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey also supported the parkway. He reviewed a series of questions he had e-mailed to <br />Ms. Childs: <br /> <br /> · Can the council have the Planning and Development Department January 2, <br /> 2002, Layout 1 map, blown up with color, shown on the screen at the back of the <br /> Council Chamber during the hearing? <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />