Laserfiche WebLink
framework to work within. He thought Option 4 provided a greater balance between development and <br />protection than Option 3, in keeping with the spirit of the West Eugene Wetlands Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that the council would consider Council Bill 4737, an ordinance amending the West Eugene <br />Wetlands by adopting new and revised wetland designations for site HG (Option 4), referred to as the <br />Hyundai site, and related policy and text amendments; adopting a severability clause; and providing an <br />effective date. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, that the bill, with the unanimous consent of <br /> the council, be read a second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be <br /> considered at this time. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the council should not wait to vote until Mr. Rayor was present. Mr. Torrey said that Mr. <br />Rayor was aware the vote was to be taken, and when asked indicated he did not want the vote postponed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly clarified that Phase 2 of the Hyundai development, while referred to several times, had not been <br />built. <br /> <br />Responding to Ms. Taylor's earlier question, Mr. Kelly said that the council was discussing the topic because <br />it needed to designate the undesignated wetlands. He said that he did not consider the discussion to be about <br />Hyundai. He had attempted to look at the criteria and find an option that satisfied the criteria. He believed <br />Hyundai had done some good things and some bad things, and would continue to do some of both. Mr. Kelly <br />emphasized his interest in an option that satisfied the criteria. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that one potential advantage to the wetlands from Option 4 as opposed to Option 1 could <br />be the relocation of the east-west ditch, which could create better wetlands values. He suggested another <br />advantage of Option 4 was the larger number of votes it could garner. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner felt that Option 4 was reasonable. He agreed with Ms. Taylor that the tax situation was <br />frustrating, but the exemptions were not granted in perpetuity, and at some point in time will expire. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted that she would have supported Option 3 if a motion to that effect had been made. She <br />asked for information about mitigation ratios related to the impact of 0.4 acres. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the <br />mitigation ratios for the wetland type of wet prairie was 2.5 acres for each acre of impacted wetland. He said <br />wet prairie had the highest value and replacement value, adding that was one reason that plan policy preferred <br />impacts to lower quality wetlands. In staf?s analysis, the lower quality wetlands south of the east-west ditch <br />would be easier to replace in terms of quality and complexity. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that Mr. Bj6rklund's remarks seemed to argue for the relative benefit of Option 4 to the <br />wetlands as opposed to Option 1. He said that Mr. Kelly's remarks for the relocation of the ditch supported <br />those remarks. As it stood, the ditch was not actually much of a ditch at this point. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that it was not often the council was as close to unanimous as it appeared to be on this topic, <br />and he commended the development of the option. He said that the council was interested in the balance the <br />option represented. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 2, 2000 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />