New Search
MAR20.DOC <br /> Page 8 <br /> II. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (Continued) <br /> A. WEWP Amendment Process Update /Responses to Comments <br /> The Wetheads reconvened at 10 a.m. on March 24 in Room 240 of The Atrium Building to continue their <br /> discussion of the Eugene Speedway site. Mr. Bjorklund, Ms. Evans, Mr. Long, and Mr. Alverson were present. <br /> They examined aerial photographs of the speedway site. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund pointed out the location of the rare plants on the site more precisely. The Wetheads discussed how <br /> the plants could be protected given that they were located just outside the 900 -foot corridor proposed for protection. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund said that the question before the Wetheads was whether to recommend more protection to the <br /> planning commissions. <br /> Ms. Evans said that she was wished to ensure that the Wetheads' recommendation for the site reflected consistent <br /> application of the criteria. Mr. Bjorklund said that in terms of the rare plant criteria, it was possible to distinguish <br /> between Hyundai and the speedway on the basis of proximity of the two patches of plants outside the corridor to the <br /> other plant populations. <br /> Mr. Alverson pointed out the site previously supported a major population of Erigeron decumbens (or Lomatium <br /> bradshawii) and suggested that the site was desirable as habitat for species recovery. Ms. Evans asked if the site <br /> was where the partnership wanted species recovery to occur. <br /> Mr. Long said that the planning commissioners might not accept a recommendation to protect a few plants and <br /> could possibly suggest that the plants be salvaged instead. Ms. Evans agreed. Mr. Alverson said that the obvious <br /> demarcation on the site was the border of the area of agricultural activity. He believed that the site should be <br /> protected from that border to the east. Mr. Bjorklund said that was the basis for the 900 -foot corridor, but the <br /> exact location of the boundary on the ground might not be precisely the same as the border of the agricultural <br /> activity. <br /> Mr. Alverson suggested that the plants be left in place and the Wetheads monitor the site. He said that the plants <br /> may not be affected if the hydrology on the site was not affected, particularly as the drainage was north to south. <br /> Ms. Evans said that she was not prepared to recommend a change to the planning commissions' recommendation at <br /> this point. She suggested that if the plants turned out to be outside the corridor, they could be salvaged, or perhaps <br /> addressed through the site review process. There was general concurrence. <br /> Responding to a question from Ms. Evans, Mr. Bjorklund indicated he would review the record to determine <br /> whether the City indicated its intent to protect the prairie habitat on the site. He said he would offer the planning <br /> commissions the new information about rare plants and indicate that the existing recommendation was consistent <br /> with the criteria, but would also point out the extent of the undisturbed prairie and number of rare plants and offer <br /> alternatives if the commissions wished to pursue them. Ms. Evans endorsed the proposed approach. <br /> Ms. Evans raised an issue related to the installation of stormwater pipe along West 18th Avenue and indicated she <br /> had been told that there was no need for a permit because the existing right -of -way traveled through a protected <br /> wetland. Mr. Bjorklund indicated disagreement with that conclusion, saying he would have to examine the language <br /> in the plan but believed that it would require a plan amendment for the work to proceed. <br /> The Wetheads agreed to meet again in special session to complete the discussion of utility lines and the EWEB <br /> substation site. <br /> The meeting adjourned at 10:10. <br />