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

Home Browse Search

things had changed since the parkway was initially contemplated. He believed there were alternatives, and suggested one was for the jurisdiction to ask the planning commissions to work together to pursue the LUTRAQ (Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality) approach used in Portland. Mr. Boles suggested that those with any kind of financial interest in the issue declare a conflict of interest. Dave Sohm, 727 Mountain View Drive, said the Eugene Planning Commission did not represent the majority of citizens. He said the parkway was needed to overcome the anti-business perception people had of the community. The commissioners reflected attitudes in wards 1, 2, and 3, while wards 5, 6, and 7 were not represented on the commission. Councilors supporting the parkway were recently elected by wide margins. He said his daughter had been unable to find a good paying job in Eugene. He asked that the parkway be supported to facilitate economic development. Julie Hulme, 455-1/2 River Road, called for a long-term approach to transportation issues in west Eugene. She asked the adopting officials to reject the parkway and protect the uniqueness of the region for future generations and all species. She noted the historic loss of wetlands in Eugene using a display aid. She believed the parkway would be expensive and would add to the congestion in the community. Roxie Cuellar, Homebuilders Association of Lane County, said that Florence members expressed a desire to have the parkway built, and they would submit written testimony to that effect. She spoke to the Goal 3 and Goal 4 exceptions that would be needed. She said that the findings that were prepared by ODOT were well-written, and she recommended that the adopting officials read the document. She said the Eugene Planning Commission had argued that the exception would spur undesired development beyond the UGB. She said the reality was, that would be very difficult to accomplish. If development occurred in west Eugene, it would be because the adopting officials approved it. D. Judith Henshel, 2622 Edison Street, Eugene, discussed traffic conditions on Roosevelt Boulevard in support of her remarks that the parkway was not needed. She asked that all alternatives be fully researched before a final decision was made. She advocated for creative solutions. Kathy Madison, 1200 High Street, spoke to the Eugene Planning Commission's opposition to the parkway on the basis of Section 3.14 of the WEWP. She said that the section merely directed local governments to take action to protect land after it was acquired, and it did not assure protection. She said that Section 3.14 was not an obstacle for designating planned transportation corridors. She believed that the section was taken out of context, and that it did not prohibit designation of the planned transportation corridor. She said the project should respect the plan when relevant, and other plans as well. She said that there were other plans that would be affected. She called for a broader look at the issue involved and urged the adopting officials to take the vote into consideration. Robert Emmons, 40093 Little Fall Creek Road, Fall Creek, noted the growth that occurred in west Eugene since he moved to town. He believed that growth was a matter of choice. He said that the parkway would facilitate sprawl and lead to the destruction of farms and open space between Eugene and Veneta. He noted the wetlands that would be affected by the parkway. Mr. Emmons urged the adopting officials to listen to the citizens who did not vote for the parkway and reject the project. MINUTES--Joint Adopting Officials May 29, 2002 Page 9