CC Minutes - 08/02/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

ditch, the option was consistent with the recommendation of the planning commissions. He pointed that allowed a nonwetland area to be developed, and noted that the West Eugene Wetlands Plan was not intended to regulate nonwetland areas. Mr. Kelly said that information from staff also indicated that a relocated east- west ditch might have a higher value for the wetlands. At the request of Mr. Pap~, Mr. Bj6rklund used a wall map to distinguish between the areas proposed to be protected, restored, and developed on the site in Option 4, and noted the associated acreages. He differentiated between the elements of the recommendations reflected in options 3 and 4. Ms. Taylor asked if the purpose of Option 4 was to make it easier for Hyundai to develop. Mr. Bj6rklund responded that staff developed the option in response to concerns raised by the council about the need for more alternatives than had been previously presented. Ms. Taylor said that adoption of the option would have the effect of making the site more easy for Hyundai to develop. Mr. Bj6rklund said that in comparison to the planning commissions' recommendation, there would be more land available for development. Ms. Taylor said that if the council approved Option 4 the result would be further degradation of wetland and scenic values on the site and the value of the remaining wetlands was decreased. Mr. Torrey suggested that Option 2, the option put forward by Hyundai, was based on the company's assessment of its development site needs for Phase 3 of its development. He asked if staff had been in communication with Hyundai to know if Option 4 met the company's needs. Mr. Bj6rklund said the company had responded, both through the media and in a voice mail message he had received after the close of the record, that Option 3 would be workable for its plans. The company had made no statement about Option 4. Mr. Torrey noted absent Councilor Gary Rayor's suggestion that the construction preparation area could be restored and protected after construction was completed. He asked if that was possible. He added that he did not think Hyundai's request was unreasonable, but he was prepared to support Option 3, and possibly Option 4. Mr. Bj6rklund clarified that Mr. Rayor was referring to what was known as a "lay down" area. Under wetland law, temporary storage could occur as long as that storage met no definition of fill, and that storage would be less damaging during the dry season. He believed it would require more research to determine whether such a use was compatible with the wetland designation of restoration. At the request of Mr. Lee, Mr. Bj6rklund briefly described the State wetlands conservation plan approval process and the conditions imposed on Eugene's plan related to adoption of the plan amendments by December 31, 2000. He said that State staff indicated that because the plan's approval had been extended once before, it would not be extended again. If the approval was revoked by the State, it had implications for property development in the west Eugene area. He spoke of the plan's status as a national model, and said that revocation of the plan would have symbolic implications at the regional and national level as well. Responding to a follow-up question from Mr. Lee, Mr. Bj6rklund said that if the plan's approval was revoked, it would still have force as local policy and it would have some effect at the State level, but the federal government could approve a fill permit that was not consistent with the plan. At the request of Mr. Lee, Mr. Bj6rklund used a wall map of the site to describe the differences between the options. Mr. Farr commended the ongoing quality of the staffwork on the topic. MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 3 Work Session