Laserfiche WebLink
· Can the council have a copy of the 1992 West Eugene Wetlands Plan Map that <br /> identifies those highway or transportation projects that were allowed for when this <br /> plan was adopted? <br /> · Does the fact that the WEP is now north of the tracks and not south of the tracks <br /> matter? <br /> · If the WEP is not allowed, could Highway 126 be expanded to six lanes per the <br /> 1992 map? <br /> · Why was the WEP route moved from the south side of the tracks to the north side <br /> of the tracks? <br /> · Do all four bodies have the legal authority to meet the various standards and to <br /> provide findings that would allow us to proceed with the WEP? <br /> · What quantity and quality are the wetlands that will be disturbed by the WEP? <br /> · How many acres of wetlands have been purchased in the West Eugene Wetlands <br /> Plan area to date? <br /> · How many acres of wetlands have been restored? <br /> · Who and how will the funds be provided in order to restore and maintain the <br /> remaining purchased wetlands that have yet to restored? <br /> · Assuming that all of the potentially impacted wetlands were of the highest quality, <br /> are there adjacent wetlands, or wetlands that may be more suitable that have not <br /> been purchased, that could be purchased for mitigation purposes. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked what would happen to the money in TransPlan allocated to the postponed <br />projects in the case of a legal challenge; did that mean that nothing would be built? Ms. Childs <br />referred Ms. Bettman's question to ©D©T. Ms. Bettman asked who paid for the mitigation <br />required by the parkway, the ongoing maintenance, and the estimated cost. Ms. Childs said that <br />the answer to the first two parts of the question was ©D©T, and she referred the last part of the <br />question to ©D©T. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor requested a summary of the lands purchased with Land and Water Conservation Fund <br />owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). He asked that all future new road <br />connections be showed on an area map as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly asked ©D©T to state when the parkway would be fully constructed if the plan <br />amendments were approved at the local level. He asked if ©D©T had responded to the <br />questions asked by BLM of ©D©T previously. Ms. Childs noted that BLM was a cooperating <br />agency for the ElS, and those questions must be addressed. Mr. Kelly wanted to know when. <br />He said that it seemed unfair of ©D©T to put the council in the position of making a decision <br />without saying how it would respond to the BLM's concerns. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson raised the issue of the private and public investments and the zoning decisions <br />made in west Eugene on the basis that the parkway would be constructed. She asked staff to <br />explain where in the packet that issue was addressed; to the extent investment plans were <br />altered, was the City effectively reducing its inventory of industrial property by not building the <br />parkway? Ms. Childs said that the issue was not addressed in the City's findings, although it <br />was touched upon somewhat by the ©D©T findings. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ referred to the letter the City received from the Department of Land Conservation and <br />Development related to the council's action of October 13, 2000, when it declined to initiate the <br />plan amendments needed to facilitate the parkway, and requested more information from that <br />agency regarding what it would require of the City if the parkway does not proceed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 2002 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />