Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Bj0rklund stressed the optional nature of the limits for local governments. He said that there <br />were legal benefits to the limits but they required some effort to secure. Staff believed that there <br />were two different levels of protective standard: the standard one must meet to avoid take was <br />lower than the standard of protection needed to achieve the limits. That was particularly true for <br />the limit focused on new urban development, which was of concern to most Oregon <br />municipalities because it was considered vague and set a high standard that would be hard to <br />meet in its current form. The approach was designed to apply to large tracts of land brought into <br />a city at one time, rather than individual parcels or subdivisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson reiterated the optional nature of the standards outlined by the National Marine <br />Fisheries Service and said there had been considerable concern expressed about required <br />setbacks. Such setbacks were not required. Mr. Bj0rklund added that it was a requirement to <br />have adequate buffers only if the City was getting a limit. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee noted the absence of Councilor Gary PapS, who had requested that if there were to be <br />changes made to the resolution, it be pulled for later consideration. He suggested that the <br />council postpone action on the resolution before the body if changes were made, and that the <br />item be added to a future Consent Calendar. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to provide comments <br /> to the National Marine Fisheries Service consistent with Option C. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr suggested that the motion was a "nice, feel-good motion." He said that the City wanted <br />to do what it could to protect the salmon but the federal rules placed some onerous guidelines on <br />Eugene that could potentially be very expensive to meet. He said the proactive approach <br />reflected in Option C added to that expense. He asked who was going to pay those costs. Mr. <br />Farr said the dollars were going to have to come out of other programs, necessitating cuts to <br />fund the option. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson said the council would have to direct him to prepare a work program to be reviewed <br />and approved by the council, and that work program would be key to the budget. Mr. Farr noted <br />the expense associated with development of the work program. He did not see how the City <br />could fit the program into everything else it had to do and in light of demands to restore <br />recreation programs, as he presumed it would be underwritten by General Fund money. Mr. <br />Johnson indicated it was likely grant funds and Stormwater Fund dollars would support the <br />program. Mr. Farr said that eased his concerns somewhat but raised concerns about the <br />projects that would not be funded by Stormwater Funds directed toward the program. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked the council not to interpret a vote against the motion as being opposition to the <br />restoration of the Spring Chinook salmon run on the Willamette River. He had grave concerns <br />about the funding of the program, "beyond what the federal government was already in effect <br />forcing us to do" when the City was facing serous budget cuts. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked Mr. Bj0rklund how long there had been a Spring Chinook run in the upper <br />Willamette River. Mr. Bj0rklund responded that there were two runs, one of which was the wild <br />run in the spring. There was a fall run of nonnative fish. He confirmed that there had always <br />been an upper Willamette Spring Chinook run. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 9 <br />Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />