Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the possibility of relocating the east/west ditch, <br />Mr. Farmer said the ditch could be relocated if the actual functionality of the ditch was enhanced <br />by the relocation. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commented that he was not seeing a new application of the criteria to justify or <br />explain the change in the staff report. He commented that staff used the same findings and <br />criteria but now, since the site footprint was smaller, staff considered economic development <br />more valuable. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer pointed out the direction of the flow of the wetlands on the site. He said that the <br />wetlands were no longer fed by the water source in the same way as they were before the creek <br />was relocated for the building of the road. He said that, in terms of the mitigation that was <br />carried out, the agreement was to improve the wetlands to a higher quality which meant that the <br />ditch was filled. This diverted some of the water from the ditch into the area in question. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that the original proposal that the planning commissions examined would have <br />taken a number of wetlands out of the functioning wetland category and reduced what was left. <br />He said that the smaller footprint for the site affected the value of development. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner reiterated that he did not understand why a smaller footprint of the site changed the <br />outcome. Mr. BjOrklund said that the commissions were trying to protect the waterway and <br />maintain a wide area of protection between the Willow Creek natural area and the site. He said <br />that the new development proposal allowed the areas to be protected and allowed the site to be <br />developed by the owner. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor expressed her dismay that staff had changed the recommendation and asked why <br />staff depended on a hydrological study submitted by Hyundai. Mr. BjOrklund replied that the only <br />hydrological data in the record came from Hyundai. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Ms. Taylor regarding a discussion of impacts beyond the site, Mr. <br />BjOrklund said that staff felt the development area was the only area that would be impacted. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the reasoning behind the west Eugene <br />Wetlands Plan, Mr. BjOrklund said the City had commissioned a study of four industrial sites and <br />found that they all contained wetlands. When that information was presented to the council, it <br />was decided to address wetlands regionally. He noted that the plan was adopted by the City in <br />1992 and was subsequently adopted by State and federal wetland agencies as well. He noted <br />that the Hyundai site was within the original plan boundary but was part of 267 acres of wetlands <br />that were missed by the original inventory. He said that this omission was the basis for the plan <br />amendments being discussed. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding the similarity of definitions of wetlands <br />between the City and the federal government, Mr. BjOrklund said that the City went by State and <br />federal authority of the definition of a wetland. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Pap8 regarding whether the same criteria from Hyundai was <br />being used for the speedway site, Mr. BjOrklund said that they were. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />