CC Minutes - 06/19/02 Work Session

Home Browse Search

supported, but there was too much momentum for pushing the parkway through the wetlands. He agreed with those who stated that the project would encounter many problems in the future, and said in the future the public vote would not matter. Mr. Rayor said that he had asked many environmental questions related to the project and before this point the State had been reluctant to answer them. He said the 1997 SEIS was the weakest he had seen; it did not even address the laws in place at that time. Mr. Rayor said that the decision facing the council was a policy and land use decision; his decision would be based on the findings and the merits of the case rather than on any ex parte contacts. Ms. Bettman agreed with Mr. Rayor and Mr. Meisner that the final decision regarding the parkway would be out of local hands. She said that it was almost as though the community was being asked to rubber stamp the project to help share some of the "heat" for the project. She did not think the council had sufficient information to approve the amendments being proposed. She said that ODOT could build the project if it really wanted to. She questioned the FHWA and State deadlines and requirement for approval before the mitigation plan had been prepared, before the revised findings were prepared, and before the National Environmental Policy Act findings and SEIS was done. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Childs confirmed that a decision to hold a public hearing on a wetland fill permit was at the discretion of the ACOE, but she believed the ACOE would get enough input to spur it to hold hearings. Ms. Bettman said that all the councilors were assuming there would be appeals and litigation, and asked what would happen to the $17 million for the first phase of the parkway given the delay that those actions would cause. Ms. Childs said that the State indicated that was a decision of the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC). She hoped that subject would be discussed at the OTC meeting in August 2002 if the amendments moved forward. Ms. Bettman asked what happened to the wetlands designated for development along the right-of- way of the approved design. Ms. Childs said that some were conterminous with the right-of-way for the modified project; in terms of those wetlands in the southern alignment, they were redesignated for protection in the 2000 WEWP amendments package. Ms. Taylor said that experts have told the council that, generally, mitigation did not work. She said that if the council approved the amendments, it would open the way to years of litigation that would cost the City money that was better used for other purposes. If the amendments were defeated, the projects that would be postponed to facilitate construction of the WEP could be brought forward. She called for an end to the process. Mr. Pap8 questioned Ms. Taylor's statement that wetlands mitigation does not work. That was not his experience in mitigating wetlands. He said he was not an expert, and neither was Ms. Taylor. Ms. Childs said that Neil Bj0rklund of the Planning and Development Department had indicated to the planning commissions that the local approach taken to mitigation and restoration of contiguous wetlands was working and was the best approach to mitigation. Mr. Carlson said that the wetlands in the northern alignment were either existing mitigation sites or prior converted wetlands that were in agricultural use up until a few years ago. If the Parkway was constructed, those sites would be mitigated and restored. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 19, 2002 Page 7 Work Session