Laserfiche WebLink
Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Bj0rklund said the majority of fish involved in the <br />bigger runs were hatchery fish, which often do not survive in the ocean. He said that one good <br />year was not a good barometer of the salmon's health over the long-term because of natural <br />fluctuations in climate, ocean conditions, and temperature, among other factors. Ms. Bettman <br />asked about the status of the wild salmon in general. Mr. Bj0rklund said that compared to historic <br />numbers of returning wild salmon, the numbers of wild salmon returning to the upper Willamette <br />basin were still very Iow. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the proposed outreach effort would include the solicitation of citizen input <br />that could result in changes to the recommendations. Mr. Bj0rklund anticipated that for the most <br />part, the outreach would be more educational in nature. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked how many of the strategies the City was already implementing on its property. <br />Mr. Bj0rklund said he had not done that analysis and did not know the answer. Ms. Bettman <br />suggested that the City could apply Strategy A at an accelerated pace on City property. Mr. <br />Bj0rklund reiterated that to adopt and apply an overlay district, the staff must get on the Planning <br />Commission agenda and was unable to do so until fiscal year 2004. However, he believed that <br />the City could voluntarily abide by the strategy on its own property. Ms. Bettman wanted to hear <br />more from the City Manager about how that could be accomplished. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if there were harmful activities that the City was currently failing to regulate. <br />She noted that the Agenda Item Summary indicated that the City would be liable for harmful <br />activities it failed to regulate. Mr. Bj0rklund identified significant impacts to riparian vegetation as <br />one area the City was not regulating. The City was managing its lands along the river to maintain <br />riparian areas, so he concluded there was a Iow likelihood the City would be faulted for failing to <br />self-regulate impact. The City did not currently have code authority to mandate setbacks on <br />private land along the river as was proposed through Strategy A. Mr. Bj0rklund said that if a <br />development occurred along the river that resulted in the removal of substantial riparian habitat, <br />that could be interpreted as a violation of the Endangered Species Act, and the City could be liable <br />for not regulating that activity. <br /> <br />Mr. Carlson said that on projects where the City was developing near a waterway, such as the <br />East Bank Bicycle Path, it was having the National Marine Fisheries Service review the projects <br />for potential impact. <br />Ms. Nathanson generally endorsed the strategies being proposed and appreciated the careful <br />wording of Strategy A. She determined from Mr. Bj0rklund that staff was proposing to limit rather <br />than prohibit underground utilities, in the overlay zone. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson observed that an overlay zone to protect the habitat along Amazon Creek was <br />something she had desired for a long time. She said the objectives of such a zone would be <br />habitat, aesthetic qualities, achievement of a continuous park through Eugene, and improved <br />urban design in general. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson did not think that the council needed to codify a staff check-in. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted that the council recently added examination of the telecommunications <br />ordinance to the Planning Commission's work load and questioned whether it could add yet <br />another item. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2002 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />