Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Mr. Fart, Mr. Bj6rklund attributed the West Eugene Wetlands Plan's national <br />status to its balanced, regional, landscape approach, the partnership of a variety of government and private <br />partners, and the mitigation bank, which had funded nationally recognized high-quality wetlands restoration <br />projects. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart determined from Mr. Bj6rklund that Option 4 would impact less than one-half an acre (0.4 acres). <br />Mr. Fart asked what he would see if he traveled along one of the wetland "arms" mentioned by Mr. Bj6rklund <br />that were on the site. Mr. Bj6rklund said that during this time of year, it was unlikely Mr. Fart would <br />recognize the difference between the wetland and nonwetland portion of the site. The wetland mapping for <br />the area showed that many of the nonwetland areas had hydric soils, but had fewer wetland plants. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart favored Option 4 as a carefully crafted compromise that allowed for the more effective use of <br />nonwetlands area and would have a minimal effect on the wetlands. He asked about the status of the east- <br />west ditch. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the ditch contained flow on a seasonal basis, and was partially filled for <br />400 feet of its length. Mr. Fart asked if the east-west ditch would be more viable under Option 4. Mr. <br />Bj6rklund indicated that Hyundai would be required to demonstrate that the function and values of the ditch <br />would be improved before it could be relocated. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner observed that the wetlands plan was intended to provide both balance and predictability. He <br />thought Option 4 achieved those goals and was an improvement over Option 3. It provided for both <br />development and substantial protection of the wetlands. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson found the findings for Option 4 to be much improved over the findings the council had <br />considered for Option 3. She said that findings were specific as to what she considered the most important <br />objectives for the site, as they kept the ditch as far north as possible, separated the development and natural <br />area, and maintained the width of the prairie corridor on the southeast portion of the site. Ms. Nathanson said <br />that the council should keep in mind that the option minimized fill of the wetlands, and that three-quarters of <br />the site was designated for protection while another quarter, including that already developed, would be <br />designated for development. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly also commended the staf?s work on the subject and said he always found that staff was well- <br />motivated and worked to do the right thing. He appreciated the staff response to the council's concerns in the <br />form of Option 4. He said that he could not have supported Option 3 because of the insufficiency of the <br />findings. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the council had no real way to know if Option 3 would have worked for Hyundai. He said <br />that one Hyundai spokesman indicated in the local newspaper that it would, while another stated on another <br />day that the company did not know if the option was feasible. <br /> <br />At the request of Mr. Pap6, Mr. Bj6rklund described the initial impetus that led to the development of the <br />West Eugene Wetlands Plan, saying that the City had found many wetland sites in a prime industrial area <br />where significant growth was planned. The council at that time believed that a local role in the fill permitting <br />process was essential, and that a local wetlands conservation plan would provide both certainty for <br />development and better protection for the wetlands through the more regional approach envisioned in the <br />plan. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />