CC Minutes - 05/29/02 JEO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

was contrary to the goals of the WEWP. Mr. O'Brien said that the process did not conform with the adoption process outlined in that plan. Jim Welsh, 90050 Killian Lane, Lane County Association of Realtors, said that the parkway was long- planned for in recognition of regional transportation needs and to facilitate transportation through the area. He noted that a large majority of trips moving through the corridor were through trips ending outside the urban growth boundary (UGB). He said that State land use planning required all entities to plan for the future using established guiding principles. Local planning must coincide with regional and statewide planning. He said that the Transportation Planning Rule identified as a need the movement of people and goods through and out of the state. The parkway served that larger need. He noted that the Oregon Highway Plan classified the parkway as a State highway intended to provide interregional mobility and connections to larger areas. Emily Fox, 455 East 34th Avenue, sang a song of opposition to the parkway to the adopting officials. Keith Nastiuk, 551 Montara Street, supported the parkway, and asked the adopting officials to maintain the trust of the voters. Sharon Blick, 2579 Kincaid Street, Eugene, submitted written testimony in opposition to the parkway. She had supported the WEWP because mitigation was proposed to occur in a large roadless area. The route of the parkway passed through a large section of protected wetlands. Construction of the parkway would mean that mitigation was a sham. She believed supporters of the parkway were financially motivated, and opponents were motivated by the love of the wetlands. Gary Wildish, 2424 Quince Street, Eugene, noted that his children were all professionals who did not live in Eugene. He supported the parkway as a needed element of the transportation system. He said that the parkway was long planned for and was included in numerous acknowledged plans. He pointed out that there was a railroad already in the proposed alignment of the parkway. He noted the successful parkway vote and the voters' rejection of a ballot measure proposing alternatives. He called for approval of the amendments. Rob Handy, 455-1/2 River Road, Eugene, submitted written testimony. He opposed the parkway because he believed its construction would break many laws. He averred information was not made available to the public and "closed door meetings" were occurring. He said that citizens should have more time to speak. He believed voters were mislead by proponents in terms of funding. He believed the project was not funded. Mr. Handy said he was assured by various adopting officials that the funding was in place. He maintained his neighbors wanted to know why the Beltline project was cancelled if the money was there. He asked why a new SEIS was not being done to account for new information. He asked why Mr. Pap8 did not recuse himself because of his ownership of a highway equipment dealership. Kari Westlund, 115 West 8th Avenue, Lane County Convention and Visitors Association, Eugene, expressed the association's support for the parkway. She said the association recognized the loss of wetlands but believed it was needed. Accessibility from west Eugene was difficult. People coming from the west often bypass the center because it was difficult to reach. Shawn Boles, 105 North Adams Street, Eugene, opposed the parkway because it would cost too much and would affect the wetlands. He endorsed the recommendation of the Eugene Planning Commission, averring it was the only commission that looked at the issues in-depth. He said that MINUTES--Joint Adopting Officials May 29, 2002 Page 8