CC Minutes - 02/10/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

address the problem, including City and County work crews, youth corps, volunteers, and its own staff. All the strategies, in particular that one, would be dependent on resource availability. He said that there were many different ways to attack the problem, including the recommendation for adoption of a list of such species. That would discourage citizens from planting those species. Mr. Pap8 suggested the City had no money for Strategy I, Conduct a Willamette River Floodplain Acquisition Study. Mr. BjOrklund indicated the likelihood that federal funding would be sought for the study as it fit well with other resource priorities. The City did not have to come up with its own funds to realize the strategy. Mr. Pap8 determined that most such requests required matching funds, and expressed concern about funding such expenditures as opposed to funding social programs. Mr. Carlson indicated that such matching funds would come from such sources as the Parks and Open Space bond or the Stormwater Program. The City did not use General Fund dollars to match federal dollars for such activities. Ms. Bettman noted that the council received testimony expressing concern that the diversion of water into Delta Ponds could potentially lower the level of the Willamette River and raise its temperature. She asked if the City could be liable if that occurred and habitat was harmed. Mr. BjOrklund did not think the flow diverted to Delta Ponds would have any measurable impact on the river. Ms. Bettman asked if other communities beside Portland had adopted salmon-related setbacks. Mr. BjOrklund indicated he would follow up on the question. Ms. Bettman questioned why the City did not adopt Strategy A for its own property. Mr. BjOrklund said that the cost of going through the process did not buy the City protection it could not provide on its own. He did not think going through the adoption process twice was cost-effective. Ms. Bettman asked how the council could know that the actions associated with Strategy A, if not written down anywhere, were being applied to projects such as the courthouse project. Mr. BjOrklund clarified that the courthouse property did not belong to the City and he did not believe it would physically be affected by the overlay district. The immediate courthouse neighborhood and the waterfront could be affected by those actions. Ms. Bettman questioned how the council could know what was being done. She expressed concern about the impact of parks-related facilities such as the dog park and boat launch on salmon habitat. Mr. BjOrklund said that the nonregulatory strategies being proposed included direction to staff to reexamine the management strategies for all City-owned lands along the river and amend them to ensure they were consistent with the needs of salmon habitat. He anticipated that some of the work could begin in the next fiscal year; some might have been started already. Ms. Bettman expressed concern that the City's failure to implement all the strategies, specifically the overlay zone, now would open it to liability. In addition, there could be lawsuits against private property owners who destroy habitat, and she asked if the City would have liability for that as well. Mr. BjOrklund said there was case law where cities were held liable for not regulating harmful activity. Proving harm to salmon was a fairly significant threshold. In the absence of dead fish, one must have compelling evidence to prove harm. He believed that the City's examination of its regulations and practices together with its habitat analysis argued against its being held liable, particularly if it managed its own land in a salmon-friendly manner. Responding to a question from Mr. Poling regarding property owner notice, Mr. BjOrklund said that notice would be sent to all property owners stating the potential of the limitations associated with MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 10, 2003 Page 6 Work Session