Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors urge denial of Hermanson Preserve over wetland and wildlife concerns
Summary
Residents argued the 191‑unit plan threatens Hermanson Pond and Mill Creek wildlife, questioned the need to waive setback and design standards, and warned that permits from DSL, DEQ and Army Corps are not guaranteed.
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A steady stream of neighbors told the Woodburn Planning Commission on June 25 that Hermanson Pond and surrounding wetlands should not be the site for dense new housing.
Sonia Chavez, who lives three blocks from the pond, urged the commission to deny SUB 25‑02. ‘‘Construction will disrupt wildlife, runoff will pollute Mill Creek and the pond, and filling the floodplain will increase flood risk for both new and existing homes,’’ she said. Chavez also noted the project will require permits from the Department of State Lands, DEQ and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and warned there is no guarantee those permits will be granted.
Other speakers described frequent bird and waterfowl use, the pond’s value for schoolchildren and local photographers, and the loss of open space character. ‘‘Hermanson Pond is one of Woodburn’s most treasured natural areas,’’ Daisy said, describing annual goose migrations and family memories tied to the site.
The applicant and staff responded that the site design places the primary development east of the pond, that the application includes a single required wetland crossing (Deer Run Lane) that the team proposes to minimize and mitigate, and that the applicant plans to deed strips of property to the city to resolve an odd recorded property line that currently crosses the pond. ‘‘There is no wetland impact on this project other than the required crossing,’’ applicant Jamie Venakthimal said during rebuttal.
The commission approved the project with conditions aimed at restoration (invasive species removal, native grass reseeding, tree plantings) and wetlands protections; opponents said those steps did not eliminate the risk that the cumulative effects of development and associated infrastructure will degrade habitat.

