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

Home Browse Search

Larry Reed, 722 Country Club Road, Eugene, believed the opponents were wrong in asserting the parkway was illegal. He said that federal and State regulations permit the fill of wetlands out of recognition that such an activity was sometimes necessary. He noted the requirements that existed for mitigation. He suggested human needs may take priority over saving every wetland and every plant. Mr. Reed said the WEWP remained unaffected, and the parkway would not change the community's commitment to preserving wetlands. Both wetlands preservation and economic development could be accommodated. The SEIS found the northern route less impactful than the former route. He said the path of the parkway was not a pristine wetlands. It was along an existing railroad right-of-way separating the wetlands. Mr. Reed submitted written testimony. Jerry Smith, 5041 Saxton Way, Eugene, opposed the parkway because it would negatively impact the WEWP area. He called on those adopting officials who would benefit from the parkway not to vote on the issue. He called for preservation of what he termed "the wetlands park." Mr. Smith criticized the cost of the parkway and suggested it would not be used by ordinary citizens. He believed the parkway project would violate the LWCF policy related to disposal. He thought the cost too high. Justin Wright, 722 Country Club Road, Eugene, supported the parkway. He thought it important to find a balance between natural resource protection and urban development. If the parkway was not built, the economy would suffer and even more miles would be driven. Youth of the community would move out of town for other jobs. He said that wetlands can be legally filled, and exceptions had been designed to allow for such fill. Laud Segal, 120 West Broadway, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, opposed the parkway because of its cost and because it was not a solution to transportation issues in west Eugene. She noted the impact on the wetlands. She said the project violated State and federal regulations. She called for a community effort to identify alternatives to the parkway. Ms. Segal submitted written testimony. Andy Peters, 66 East 6th Avenue, said the parkway would be good for business, and would help give Eugene the infrastructure it needed to be vibrant. He noted the vote in support of the parkway and asked the adopting officials to honor his vote and the vote of the majority of residents and to move the project forward. Mary O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, submitted written testimony. She showed the adopting officials a map showing the property owned by the West Eugene Wetlands Partnership. She opposed the parkway because it would continue a historic pattern of wetlands destruction. Melinda Dille, Eugene, said that west Eugene residents need the parkway. She said that growth largely had occurred in the west part of the community. She said improved traffic flow was needed for residents and the businesses in the area. It was needed for safety reasons; she had had a traffic accident in the area. She noted the difficulty emergency vehicles had in moving through the area. She asked that the parkway be moved forward to fruition. Mr. Simmons left the meeting. Bob O'Brien, 3525 Gilham Road, believed the adopting officials were honoring the vote. He endorsed the recommendation of the Eugene Planning Commission. He was opposed to the parkway because it would disturb the hydrology of the wetlands and impact the ability of animals to move through the area. The parkway would dominate the wetlands. He believed the project MINUTES--Joint Adopting Officials May 29, 2002 Page 7