CC Minutes - 02/14/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

entire definition could not be included in the policy, but suggested it be referenced. Ms. Childs noted her suggestion later in the memorandum to add the preamble and the fundamental characteristics in the text under the Plan Diagram, as those statements are policy and a glossary definition was not. She added that the City Attorney had recommended deleting any description clauses in Land Use Policy 1 and suggested instead "Apply the nodal development strategy in areas selected by each jurisdiction that have identified potential for this type of transportation-efficient land use pattern." Ms. Childs said that she would recommend deleting the description clause and modifying the statement to read "...pedestrian-friendly, transportation-efficient land use pattern." Ms. Childs reported that FOE recommended that Land Use Policy 3, Transit-Supportive Land Use Patterns, be deleted from TransPlan because that organization believed the plan should focus on nodal development and the policy provided some support for transit corridors. She said that she would want to consult with staff of the Land Conservation and Development Commission if the council decided to delete the policy. No councilor voiced support for deleting the policy. Ms. Childs said that public testimony suggested that Policy 4 be revised by replacing the word "accommodate" with the word "encourage." Ms. Nathanson asked City Attorney Glenn Klein if the City's actions could encourage as opposed to accommodate. Mr. Klein defined accommodate as "you make it available but you don't care whether it happens" and encourage as setting out a goal of sorts. The City could defend either word. Referring to Land Use Policy 4, Mr. Kelly said he would like to see staff expand the discussion of redevelopment and industrial sites by focusing on areas over a certain size. Ms. Childs noted stafffs intention to revise the land Use Findings to clarify the relationship between two phrases in Finding 11. The council postponed the remainder of the review of the staff response to testimony to a future meeting. B. Work Session: Discussion on Proposed Toxic Fee Structure Glen Potter, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, introduced Toxics Board Chair Steve Johnson. Mr. Johnson was present to answer questions. Mr. Potter said that the proposal before the council was the proposal that survived further legal review following the public hearing in January. It was one of three proposals forwarded to the council by the Toxics Board in October 1999. The proposal was to assess hazardous substance fees to all Eugene manufacturers with ten or more employees unless they can show they use no such substances in their manufacturing processes. The fees would be based on the number of a company's full- time employees. Ms. Nathanson asked if it was possible that a manufacturer used no hazardous substances in its processes. She said that her workplace, which was essentially an office setting, had many hazardous materials data sheets for the chemicals used in that setting. Mr. Potter said that it was theoretically possible for a manufacturer to use no hazardous substances. Mr. Meisner said the council needed to act in a manner consistent with the remaining sections of the charter amendment. He thought the board's recommendation was true to the intent of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2000 Page 5 Work Session