Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly commented that he could not see how the staff recommendation was supportable under <br />the criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly commented that the east/west ditch was a protected waterway in the West Eugene <br />Wetlands Plan and asked what legal processes needed to be gone through to be able to fill it. <br />Mr. Bjerklund replied that the protection designation on waterways, in the plan, was primarily <br />implemented in the waterside protection subdistrict. He reiterated that the site had been <br />inadvertently left out. He said that the staff notes had direction to proceed with rezoning that <br />property as a City-initiated rezoning and they would go forward with that once the amendments in <br />question were adopted. He added that relocation of the ditch would require a site review that <br />included replanting native species, and alignment. He stressed that it would be required to <br />increase the natural functions and values. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner commented that he still did not have enough information to be comfortable making a <br />decision. He reiterated that he did not know how staff came up with its recommendation. <br /> <br />Mr. Bjerklund said that when the criteria were applied to the entire Hyundai site, a person would <br />find that there was strong development criteria and strong protection criteria and strong <br />restoration criteria. He stressed that there could not be one designation on the whole site. He <br />said that the Army Corps of Engineers had granted a permit for part of the site and that <br />automatically went to development. He said that there were originally 66 acres of wetland and <br />there were about 55 left (10-1/2 acres were filled under the original permit) <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner still did not understand why the application of the criteria had not changed but the <br />recommendation had. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer attempted to explain the same information supplied by Mr. BjOrklund in a different <br />manner. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor commented that the entire discussion had been examining the side of development <br />rather than the environment. She expressed a desire to examine the issue from the perspective <br />of how best to protect the environment. She raised concern over the incremental impacts of <br />more development in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee commented that there was no one on the council that wanted to see wetlands destroyed. <br />He stressed that staff was trying to find the right balance. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee, seconded by Ms. Taylor (as duty of the council vice president, but <br /> indicated that she would vote against the motion), moved to direct staff to <br /> prepare findings consistent with Option 3, which was to modify the Planning <br /> Commission recommendation to accommodate expansion on the site while <br /> avoiding impacts in contiguous wetland area and to rare plants and requiring <br /> enhancement and relocation of the east/west ditch addressed in the June 21, <br /> 2000, staff memorandum. <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to amend the motion by asking <br /> staff to prepare a plan amendment in agreement with Option 1, which was to <br /> adopt the Planning Commission's recommendations. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor noted that the council did not have to abide by the Planning Commission's <br />recommendations but opined that its recommendation was the right thing to do. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 28, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />