Laserfiche WebLink
In response to a question from Mr. Farr regarding the ratio of fill to mitigation, Mr. Bj0rklund said <br />that for each acre impacted, Hyundai would have to mitigate 2-1/2 acres. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr commented that the council should look at the results instead of trying to examine why <br />the staff recommendation changed. He was not in favor of referring the issue back to the <br />Planning Commission. He stressed that the bottom line was that the wetland was going to be <br />improved. <br />He emphasized that there would be better east/west water flow, more restored wetlands, <br />endangered plants were not being disturbed, and development was being kept out of protected <br />areas. <br /> <br />Doing a process check, Mayor Torrey said that the next round of discussion would be about <br />tabling the issue or voting on an option. He added that there would not be time to deal with the <br />second agenda item (TransPlan). <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the issue was only over the Phase 3 site. Addressing Mr. Papa's comments <br />regarding the state and federal criteria, He quoted a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers. "It <br />is the Corp's assessment that the goals and objectives of the plan, as expressed by the City, can <br />best be obtained by designating the wetlands north of the east/west drainage for development and <br />those south of the drainage for protection. This division of wetland protection and development <br />designations preserves a viable wetland system yet recognizes the City's need to provide land for <br />special light industrial." <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly appreciated Mr. Bj6rklund's answer to Mr. Lee's question about criterion, but said that <br />he was "beyond angry" that the council was seeing the information for the first time on the night <br />that it was supposed to provide direction. He raised concern that he was being pushed into a <br />decision before he had the appropriate amount of information. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that, with the previous staff recommendation, a predominance of protection <br />criteria were met and, with the new staff proposal, that predominance no longer existed. Mr. <br />Bj6rklund said that the analysis called for under the designation criteria was not mathematical. <br />He said that the council needed to evaluate them as a whole and judge the balance based on the <br />way the values balance out on the whole. <br /> <br />There was general discussion over the agreed-upon ending time of the meeting. <br /> <br />City Attorney Glenn Klein emphasized that any decision the council made that night was a <br />tentative decision. He said that official action did not have to be the same as the decision made <br />that evening. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Kelly regarding extending developable acreage to different <br />points on the site, Mr. Bj~rklund said that the option had been examined before the staff <br />recommendation was formulated. He commented that the wetland had different boundaries were <br />different for different pads of the year. He added that if the council only looked at the issue in <br />terms of how many acres of wetlands were impacted on the map, it would not reflect the values it <br />was impacting. He commented that the areas indicated by Mr. Kelly were marginally nonwetland. <br />He stressed that development, as a whole, needed to be considered as the development <br />boundary was moved south. He said that staff felt that there were too many habitat impacts with <br />the idea that Mr. Kelly had suggested. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />