CC Minutes - 09/22/09 Joint Elected Officials

Home Browse Search

the actions being contemplated by the elected officials did not pre-empt environmental review. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process would occur to ensure environmental protection was assured. Mr. Handy determined from Ms. Schulz that there had been two previous local exceptions to statewide Goal 15, both associated with the I-5 bridge construction project. One was for the temporary bridge carrying traffic now, and one was for the upcoming construction of the permanent bridge. Both were approved. The proposed exception would be the third exception in the metropolitan area. Mr. Handy asked staff to speak to a sentence in the reasons analysis for Finding 63 that had been included in a memorandum provided to the board that indicated there was no single statement of greenway values in the State statute or administrative rules. He also asked staff to speak to the nature of the Willamette Greenway Plan, specifically, if the plan was a compendium of plan amendments. Mr. Handy wondered how the State articulated its greenway plan and values. Mr. Metzger said he had reviewed the statute and rules extensively in attempting to set out the criteria for the exception, and while they contained considerable description about the greenway and its purpose he had been unable to find a single statement that spoke to the greenway’s functions and values. Ms. Schulz added the goal encompassed many different values. Speaking to the nature of the plan, she clarified that it was not a specific refinement plan for the greenway, which was a mapping overlay. Mr. Handy determined from Mr. Metzger that State law spoke to a boundary of approximately 150 feet away from the river. In Eugene-Springfield the boundary frequently expanded to encompass publicly- owned land that was past that distance. He believed that a distance of 150 feet from the river was the general boundary but could not guarantee that was the case in every situation. Mr. Pishioneri asked what the viaduct would look like. Mr. Metzger said two basic design approaches were being considered but the design was not yet finalized. For the most part, the viaduct would be within the Oregon Department of Transportation right-of-way. He described the two approaches being discussed. Ms. Lundberg thought a bicycle path was much needed in the area and its location next to the river would provide bicycle riders with a more enjoyable aesthetic experience. She supported the amendment and wanted to see the elected officials move the project on to the next stage. Ms. Taylor advocated for leaving the public record open. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to leave the public record open for seven days. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Stewart, moved to hold a third reading and deliberations on October 21, and to hold the record open for seven days. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ralston, seconded by Ms. Pishioneri, moved to leave the public record open for seven days and hold a public hearing on October 10. The motion passed unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending Chapter I, Introduction and Purpose Section of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan by Adding Separate Population Forecasts for the Cities of Springfield and Eugene for the Period 2010-2030 and Including the Period 2030-2035, and Adopt- ing a Severability Clause Springfield Planning Manager Greg Mott was present for the item and identified a discrepancy in the materials adopted by the three planning commissions and the language adopted by the board for the Lane County projections in MINUTES—Joint Elected Officials—Lane County, Springfield, September 22, 2009 Page 3 & Eugene