Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/1992 Meeting ... , , M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Council Chamber--City Hall September 14, 1992 7:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Shawn Boles, Bobby Green, Ruth Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Randy MacDonald, Paul Nicholson, Kaye Robinette. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Mayor Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan. The regular meeting of the Eugene City Council of September 14, 1992, was called to order by City Council President Shawn Boles. The agenda was amended so that Item V was moved to precede Item III. I. PUBLIC FORUM Dave Sweet, 1237 Ferry Street, quoted Henry Thoureau as saying IIgovernment that governs least, governs best.1I He said he believed that Eugene needed a more responsive government. e William J. Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, read a prepared statement that was addressed to Mayor Jeff Miller about the cost of the Eugene Decisions process. Mr. Mason said that at a supplemental budget public hearing in June, he challenged that the $351,000 cost of the Eugene Decisions process did not include lease expenses for the building in which Eugene Decisions staff worked between April 1991 and August 1992. Referring to a response he received from Mayor Miller about this challenge, Mr. Mason said he was correct in that the rent expense for the building was not included in the $351,000 figure. He calculated the lease expense for the building as totaling $44,055. He asked why lease expenses are funded by the City's operations budget. He said he believed that the actual cost of the Eugene Decisions process was about $.5 million. In conclusion, he requested an updated line item budget for the Eugene Decisions process. Mr. Boles said he understood that an updated budget was being prepared by staff. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of City Council Minutes of April 22, 1992, Dinner Work Session; May 26, 1992, Joint City Council/Planning Commission Work Session; and June 22, 1992, Meeting e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 1 7:30 p.m. e Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to approve the items on the City Council Consent Calendar. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. III. PUBLIC HEARING: CODE CHANGES REGARDING INITIATIVES AND ELECTIONS Acting Assistant City Manager Linda Norris introduced the item. David Biedermann, Administrative Services Department (ASD) , presented the staff report. The draft ordinance includes proposed changes to the initiative! referendum process, some of which are mandated by State law, and some that have been made at the request of the City Council to make the process more effective and efficient for citizens. Mr. Biedermann reviewed additional changes that have been made to the proposed ordinance since it was reviewed by the Citizen Involvement Committee (CIC) in early 1991. First, some changes were made to make references to positions gender-neutral. Second, all references to any change in the number of signatures required were deleted. Third, some titles were corrected to clarify meaning in the paragraphs in which they were found. Fourth, the reference to the number of words to be used in the ballot caption, question, and impartial statement was deleted and replaced with a clause stating that whatever State law in effect at the time of a petition filing would cover the reference. Fifth, language regarding the use of statistical sampling was included as it was passed by the 1991 Legislature. Last, the city election option for the City Council was added. e Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Biedermann said the City Attorney's Office (CAD) is empowered to write the ballot title, given that the proposed ballot title for the petition in question is submitted by petition sponsors. He said the CAO currently does not have the ability to recommend changes which may be accepted or rejected by petitioners. Ms. Ehrman recalled an instance in which the CAD met with petitioners to assist in drafting an initiative. Bill Gary, CAD, explained that such assistance was provided by the CAD in one instance after a measure was already approved by the voters. He said that attempts were made to suggest revisions to some language con- tained in the measure that would be acceptable to proponents of the measure. Responding to questions from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Biedermann said legislation passed with an emergency clause attached to it would be subject to the initiative process, not the referendum process. The initiative process allows 100 days to collect signatures, instead of 30 days allowed by the referendum process, and the number of required signatures for an initiative is 7,654 while 5,123 are required for a referendum. He said at present, a referendum cannot be filed for legislation that has already been enacted. Mr. Nicholson noted a CIC policy that requires a second review of a proposal if any changes are made after its initial review. Mr. Boles said the CIC's recommendation is in reference to substantive changes. Mr. Biedermann said he was not aware of this recommendation. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 2 7:30 p.m. e Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Biedermann said the reasons for the proposed changes were to bring the ordinance in compliance with State law and to make the initiative/referendum process more accessible and effective for the public. Responding to questions from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Gary said the effect of an emergency clause under State law is to defeat the referendum process and explained that this is the reason why the Oregon Constitution allows the Governor to veto a bill as well as an emergency clause attached to specific legislation. Answering a different question, Mr. Biedermann said considerable staff discussion was held regarding the attachment of the emergency clause to the proposed ordinance. He said the decision to attach the emergency clause was based on the current ordinance being outdated. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said the City has the ability to amend the City Charter to make provision for a different mechanism for implementing emergency legislation. He said the implementation of emergency legislation is provided for in the City Charter in the same way as the State Constitution provides for the emergency implementation of State legislation. Mr. Nicholson said he shares concerns that a number of citizens have expressed to him about CAO review. Mr. Gary said that the CAD acts on behalf of the City when providing petitioners with legal advice that would be viewed as improvements to an initiative/referendum to avoid potential legal challenges. He said there would be no attorney-client privilege, as any legal advice from the CAD in such cases would be governed by the Oregon Public Records Law. He said he was not aware of any exemption under the law that e would allow for legal advice in such instances to remain confidential. Ms. Bascom expressed concern about the timing in which the proposed ordinance was being presented to the council. She suggested approving the proposed changes that are housekeeping in nature and referring the ordinance back to the CIC for review, with some analysis of the City Club study on the initia- tive/referendum process released earlier this year. Mr. Biedermann noted that a number of members who served on the City Club subcommittee that worked on the study also served on the CIC when it reviewed the ordinance in 1991, and that he provided a presentation on the City's initiative/referendum process to the City Club when the study was being developed. Responding to questions from Ms. Ehrman regarding Section 2.977(2) of the proposed ordinance, Mr. Biedermann said the purpose of that section is to provide for suggestions by the CAD to petitioners about clarity, style, and approach that may clarify a petition for individuals who wish to sign it. Mr. Gary added that it would be unconstitutional to compel petitioners to accept recommendations of the CAO. Responding to questions from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said the cost of CAO review of initiatives/referendums would be paid by the City. He added that legal counsel who represent petitioners often contact the CAO first to find out what position the City might take with respect to the effectiveness of their client's proposed legislation. He said the purpose of CAO review is to e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 3 7:30 p.m. e give petitioners the opportunity to correct obvious mistakes that are often made in drafting legislation. Mr. Boles opened the public hearing. Dave Sweet, 1237 Ferry Street, testified in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He expressed concern about the CAO's increased power under the proposed ordinance and suggested that the City hire its own legal counsel. William J. Mason, 1803 West 34th Avenue, testified in opposition to the proposed ordinance's emergency clause. He felt that the ordinance should be referred back to the CIC for a second review. He said that based on his experience with the initiative process, he felt the proposed changes would not make the initiative process more effective for the public. He also expressed concern about the proposed changes increasing the CAO's power. Robert Wolfe, 3380 High Street, said that it was currently more difficult than ever to place an initiative on the ballot. He said that changes in the initiative process should be made to make the process easier. He echoed concerns expressed about increasing the power of the CAO, saying that petiti- oners need access to legal advice, but not from the CAO. He also expressed concern about the statistical sampling procedures under the proposed ordi- nance. He recommended adding a provision to allow a margin of error in the sampling procedures, noting that the Secretary of State's Office was consider- ing a similar idea for State initiatives. He expressed concern about the proposed changes to the ordinance being referred to as housekeeping in nature e and about attaching an emergency clause to the ordinance. In conclusion, he asked that the council table action to allow more time to review the proposed changes and that staff verify whether the public notice for this public hearing met the legal requirements. Morton SalinQ, 1510 Charnel ton Street, noted that he found out about this public hearing on Friday, September 11, and that he was not able to obtain a copy of the proposed ordinance until this afternoon. He said that signature requirements for city-initiated initiatives in Eugene were four to five times more stringent than State requirements for State initiatives. He said that the City Charter violated State law with respect to the amount of time for collecting signatures. He asked for more time to review the proposed changes and echoed the concerns expressed about attaching the emergency clause to the ordinance. Robert RounsleQ, 476 East Broadway, thanked the council for the opportunity to speak. He testified in support of extending the time period for collecting signatures and reducing signature requirements to less than 10 percent of the number of voters who voted in the last election. Eben Dobson, 525 Fair Oaks Drive, was unable to testify due to a sore throat and said that he would submit his testimony in writing. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 4 7:30 p.m. e Kevin Hornbuckle, 1417-1/2 Olive Street, introduced himself as a Ward 3 candidate for the City Council. He asked that the council either table action or defeat the proposed ordinance, saying that there has not been enough time allowed to review the proposed changes. He said that significant changes are proposed, but understood that the council directed staff to remove substantive changes at an August work session on the proposed ordinance. He felt that the proposed ordinance would make it essentially impossible for citizens to place a referendum on the ballot and would also deny them the opportunity to legis- late non-legislative matters. He said he did not think the City should be able to place an initiative or referendum on a special mail-in ballot. Tom Lester, 92 West 15th Avenue, felt that the proposed changes in the signature sampling procedures needed clarification. He echoed support expressed for allowing a margin of error in the signature sampling procedures. He felt there was an incongruity in the language contained in the title and subsections under Section 2.976. Ken Tollenaar, 1522 Russet Drive, introduced himself as the Chair of the City Club Committee and former member of the CIC when it reviewed the ordinance in 1991. He asked that the council adopt the proposed ordinance as presented. Referring to concerns expressed about CAO review, he stated that there is a genuine problem with poorly drafted initiatives, citing Ballot Measure 5 and the Nuclear Free Zone initiative. He said that CAO review was technical in nature and objected to earlier comments expressed that question the integrity of the CAO. He said the proposed ordinance was virtually the same as what the CIC reviewed in 1991. Referring to concerns expressed earlier about the e emergency clause attachment, he said that citizens have recourse if legisla- tive bodies abuse their power with the emergency clause. In conclusion, he urged the council to adopt the ordinance. Robert Freeman, 690 West 31st Avenue, asked the council to table action on the proposed ordinance to allow more time to review the proposed changes. He felt that having the CAO review initiatives would be, in effect, like having the CAO review legislation that the City Council has already rejected. Ruth Duemler, 1745 Fircrest Drive, said she moved to Eugene a short while ago because she felt that democracy could take place here. She described her experience with the initiative process and emphasized that making the process easier for citizens was very important. Randy Prince, PO Box 927, said he was proud to be born in the state in which the referendum process was first created. Speaking from his experience with the initiative processes at both the state and municipal level, he said that Eugene's process was much more difficult. He supported lowering signature requirements for city-initiated measures. Rick Gold, 176 North Grand Avenue, said there was no emergency to adopt changes in Eugene's initiative/referendum process because current State law governs the process. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 5 7:30 p.m. e There being no other requests to speak, the public hearing was closed. In responding to testimony, Mr. Biedermann said he understood from the council's August 26 work session that requests to remove substantive changes from the ordinance would be made by individual councilors. He said he did not receive any such requests. He clarified that under the proposed ordinance, an appeal to a ballot title prepared by the CAO would be directly referred to Lane County Circuit Court. He said that the proposed ordinance's language with respect to signature sampling procedures was taken directly from State statutes. Referring to the comment about the apparent contradiction in the title under Section 2.976(1)(d), he explained that this section refers to certain conditions that are required when a petition is to be filed. He said the title could be rewritten for clarification. Also responding to testimony, Mr. Gary said current State statute requires that ballot titles for city legislation be prepared by a city attorney and that appeals be referred to circuit court, but explained that this statute is not binding on the City. He said the appeals process is an expedited proce- dure which does not require legal counsel and that the filing fee for an appeal could be waived. He said the proposed ordinance would authorize signature verification in a manner that is provided for by the Secretary of State's Office. He said the power for the CAO to remove administrative or non-legislative matters already exists, explaining that the Oregon Supreme Court has expressly held that administrative matters are not subject to either the initiative or referendum process. He said that State statute preempts the e City's power with respect to certain matters, such as the number of words in a ballot title. He said the time period for collecting signatures in not controlled by State statute. With respect to concerns about the emergency clause attachment, he said that the decision to attach an emergency clause is a non-reviewable political judgement by the City Council. In response to concerns about the proposed changes increasing the CAO's power, he said the CAO reviews proposed legislation to avoid potential problems that might arise after the legislation is approved. Finally, in response to a question about the public notice of this public hearing, he explained that the Public Meetings Law requires at least 24 hours notice and a statement of subjects to be discussed at a meeting, but that failure to note all of the subjects to be discussed does not invalidate the meeting. Notice for this public hearing was provided Friday, September 11. Mr. Nicholson felt that the council needs to be especially sensitive to public concern in addressing changes in the initiative/referendum process. He suggested referring the ordinance back to the CIC for review. Ms. Ehrman said that she would offer some amendments to the proposed ordinance if there is consensus to act on it tonight; otherwise, she suggested holding the public record open to allow further testimony and postponing action for a future meeting. Referring to concerns expressed about the council reviewing ballot title appeals, she said that from her experience in this process, the council has objectively reworded ballot titles that have been satisfactory to e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 6 7:30 p.m. e petitioners, but supported providing petitioners with the option of either having the City Councilor Lane County Circuit Court review ballot title appeals. Referring to Section 2.977(2), she suggested deleting the last sentence regarding the requirement for a written response from a petitioner either accepting or rejecting a ballot title prepared by the CAO. Regarding the signature sampling procedures, she suggested revisiting them when the Secretary of State's Office develops new procedures in the future. Finally, she said she did not see a need to attach an emergency clause to the ordi- nance. Ms. Bascom concurred with Councilor Nicholson's comment about being sensitive to public concern in addressing changes in the initiative/referendum process. Mr. MacDonald said he was not present at the August 26 work session when the council discussed the proposed ordinance, but said he understood that a request was made for staff to remove substantive changes from the proposed ordinance to be considered tonight. He said he did not have an opportunity to review the proposed changes before he received his council packet on Friday, September 11. He supported postponing action, emphasizing the importance of preserving the citizens' confidence that their government intends to maintain their right of access to the ballot. He concurred with Councilor Nicholson's comment about being sensitive to public concern, especially in light of the public's cynicism towards government. He said he also agreed with Ken Tollenaar's testimony that there is a problem with poorly drafted initiatives. Finally, he agreed with Councilor Ehrman that there is no need to attach an emergency clause to the ordinance. e Mr. Boles agreed with Councilor MacDonald's statement regarding public cynicism towards government and hoped that these feelings do not turn to bitterness. He agreed with Councilor Nicholson's comment about being sensi- tive to public concern about the initiative/referendum process. He agreed with other councilors to postpone action. Mr. Green said he was unconvinced by the testimony that the proposed changes would limit citizens' ability to place an initiative/referendum on the ballot. He said he agreed with Ken Tollenaar's testimony that the proposed changes were essentially the same as the changes proposed in 1991. He supported Councilor Ehrman's suggestion to provide petitioners with an option of having ballot title appeals reviewed by the City Councilor Lane County Circuit Court. Mr. Robinette said he was greatly influenced by Ken Tollenaar's testimony but supported postponing action for further review. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Gary said the current ordinance does not prevent the CAO from offering legal advice to petitioners as long as it is directed to do so by the City. Mr. Nicholson suggested referring the ordinance as a whole to the eIC, instead of separating the proposed changes that are housekeeping in nature. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 7 7:30 p.m. e CB 4413--An ordinance concerning election procedures; amending Sections 2.505, 2.515, 2.520, 2.970, 2.973, 2.975, 2.976, 2.977, 2.979, 2.980, 2.981, 2.982, 2.983, 2.984, 2.987, 2.988, 2.990, 2.992, and 2.1990 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing Sections 2.1000 and 2.1005 to that code, and declaring an emergency. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Mr. Nicholson, to refer the ordinance back to the CIC for review and to keep the public record open. Mr. Green said he made the motion in response to public testimony. In response to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Ms. Norris said the ordinance would be reviewed by the CIC at its October meeting and possibly be scheduled for council action in late October. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. (The council took a break.) IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ANNEXATION/REZONING REQUEST FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SANTA CLARA AREA (AZ 92-7. BREEDEN LAND COMPANY) Acting Assistant City Manager Linda Norris introduced the item. Cathy Czerniak, Planning and Development Department, presented the staff report. e This is a continuation of the August 24 public hearing, at which council action was postponed due to a lack of a quorum. As noted in the staff presentation at the August 24 hearing, the council will make a decision on this based on code criteria necessary for annexation and rezoning. There was no testimony presented at the August 24 hearing, and staff has not received any additional testimony since then. Copies of the draft minutes of the August 24 meeting were included in council packets. There being no requests to speak, Mr. Boles closed the public hearing. Res. No. 4344--A resolution furthering annexation to the City of Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Service District for property located in the Santa Clara area, west of Hyacinth Street and north of Hilo Drive (portion of Lynnbrook II subdivision). Final Order AZ 92-7--A final order rezoning the property from County R-1/UL to City R-1. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to adopt the resolution and final order. Roll call vote; the motion passed 6:1, with Councilor Nicholson voting nay. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 8 7:30 p.m. e V. PUBLIC HEARING; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING Acting Assistant City Manager Linda Norris introduced the item. Richie Weinman, Planning and Development Department, presented the staff report. The Housing Policy Board recommended approval of funding for four low-income housing projects totaling $523,800 that will contribute to the new construc- tion of 121 housing units. Eleven applications by seven agencies were received through the request-for-proposal (RFP) process. Funding for the following four agencies is being recommended: 1) St. Vincent dePaul; 2) Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC); 3) Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO); and 4) Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation. Mr. Weinman said that the funding recommendation for ARC is for the acquisi- tion of property on which a specialized housing project will be developed. He said the site that was initially being explored for the project has already been sold. He said that some of the funding requests may come back in different form to the council in the future, such as in property tax exemption requests. Mr. Weinman said that representatives from the four agencies were present to answer questions. Mr. Boles opened the public hearing. e John WaQner, 1183 Van Buren Street, introduced himself as the Director of Mainstream Housing, a nonprofit affordable housing company acting as the developer for ARC's project. He thanked the Housing Policy Board and City Council for the opportunity to apply for the CDBG funding and staff for their assistance. He reiterated that the site that ARC was initially considering for its project has been purchased by another party. He added that ARC was in the process of finding an alternative site. He offered to answer questions. Mary Thomoson, 84 Green Lane, representing the property owner (Marge France) of the site which was initially being considered by ARC, reported concerns ex- pressed by Ms. France about the reference to her property included in the public notice for this hearing. Ms. Thompson noted that Ms. France is 84 years old and was unable to attend the meeting. She said that Ms. France sold her property to representatives of a church-sponsored housing project for elder care. She said she spoke to staff earlier today, who she said acknowl- edged the City's interest in Ms. France's property but also said that ARC's funding was not necessarily tied to her property. She said she also spoke to a City planner who indicated that the housing project for elder care was no longer being developed. She added that a consultant working on behalf of the City was taking photographs of Ms. France's property earlier today. Janet France, 2175 Ironwood Street, speaking on behalf of her mother, Marge France, who owns the property in question, and her son, David, who owns the property next to it. She said her mother has requested that the grant be e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 9 7:30 p.m. - ~ e divorced from the land acquisition due to some legal ramifications regarding the sale of the property. There being no other requests to speak, the public hearing closed. Mr. Weinman reiterated that the France property was no longer being considered for ARC's project. He said the consultant who was taking photographs of the property has been informed of this change in decision and added that the City will not be charged for the consultant's work related to the France property. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles, Mr. Weinman said that if the France property was still being considered, there would be no land use restrictions that would prohibit ARC's housing project from being developed on it. Ms. Ehrman thanked staff for including in the council packets the list of all of the funding requests which were received in the RFP process. Mr. MacDonald echoed this appreciation. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Wagner clarified that a sale of the France property was currently pending. Ms. Bascom pointed out that the proposed project to be developed in south Eugene would provide housing for minimum wage earners. She said the project represents the City's first cooperative effort with the private developers to provide such housing. e Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Weinman explained that "landbanking" involves first the acquisition of land and then trying to develop an affordable housing project on the land. He said that different alternatives for developing affordable housing are being explored and ex- plained that the process for the four projects under consideration was an alternative method to landbanking. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, to approve funding for low-income housing projects: St. Vincent de Paul, $28,000 from General Funds; ARC, $55,000 from CDBG Fund; NEDCO, $40,000 from HOME funds, and Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corporation, $100,000 from CDBG and $300,000 from HOME funds. Mr. Green commented that the motion represented the approval of over a half of a million dollars for the development of affordable housing. Mr. Boles commented that it is not a crime to be a low-income person and that the council was trying to provide affordable housing throughout the community. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. VI. ORDINANCE CONCERNING NATURAL RESOURCES FUNCTIONAL PLAN Acting Assistant City Manager Linda Norris introduced the item. Neil e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 10 7:30 p.m. e Bjorklund, Planning and Development Department, presented the staff report. The council held a work session on this matter on June 17, 1992, and a joint hearing with the Springfield City Council and the Lane County Board of Commissioners on July 1. At the joint hearing, most of the testimony con- cerned two Springfield sites and the public involvement process. There was also some discussion among elected officials regarding the relationship between the Natural Resources Functional Plan (NRFP) and the City of Eugene's draft Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). Mr. Bjorklund said staff reexam- ined and amended the recommended actions included in the NRFP policies regard- ing tree cutting to be consistent with the draft UFMP. He said that addition- al changes in the takings issue have been made based on advice from legal counsels of Eugene and Lane County. Finally, a new section which describes maintenance practices for channels has been included. Copies of additional proposed amendments to the NRFP and vicinity maps showing additional areas to be incorporated in the Metro Plan diagram were distributed to the council and reviewed by Mr. Bjorklund. Mr. Bjorklund said that representatives from the Natural Resources Staff Team and Planning Commission were present to answer questions. Responding to a question from Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Bjorklund said the recommen- dations included in the NRFP would not be binding on the three jurisdictions. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Mr. Bjorklund said the staff recommendation regarding the Fox property has not changed. Mr. Nicholson e recalled that there was considerable testimony that Mr. Fox's management of his property might have catastrophic consequences. Mr. Bjorklund said that the Fox property was designated and zoned for sand and gravel extraction. He said that the natural resource zone is primarily intended to protect relative- ly pristine sites and that there has been significant impact from tree removal and possibly gravel extraction on the Fox property. Cathy Weiderhold, Lane Council of Governments (L-COG), said that historic information about past course changes of the river adjacent to the Fox property was reviewed in conjunction with the Economic, Social, Environmental, Energy (ESEE) analysis. She said she felt that an evaluation of the likely impact from sand and gravel extraction on the Fox property and future course changes of the river was beyond what staff could ascertain as part of the ESEE analysis. She said that staff's recommendation regarding the Fox property was based on the site's designation and zoning and Mr. Fox's continued efforts to obtain permits to allow sand and gravel extraction on his property. She added that a number of issues on the property may prevent Mr. Fox from obtaining the necessary permits for sand and gravel extraction. In addition, with the changes being proposed at the recommendation of legal counsel, the natural resource zone protection policy would not apply to the Fox property unless Mr. Fox requested it. Steve Gordon, L-COG, said the river adjacent to the Fox property will change course and revegetate the land in the future. He said that an analysis of the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 11 7:30 p.m. e flood impacts must be conducted before Mr. Fox is able to obtain the necessary permits to allow sand and gravel extraction on his property. Ms. Bascom expressed appreciation for the insertion of language with respect to forest management practices in the NRFP. Responding to a question from Mr. Boles about testimony concerning the expansion of the natural resources inventory, Mr. Bjorklund affirmed that staff could develop a recommendation to address the continuity of natural systems throughout the metropolitan area to present to the MPC. CB 4406--An ordinance adopting the Metropolitan Natural Resources Functional Plan and Study Report as amended, adopting government-initiated amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan text and diagram, and adopting a severabili- ty clause. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4406 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be approved e and given final passage. Mr. MacDonald described a comprehensive natural resources inventory conducted in the Portland metropolitan area. Ms. Ehrman expressed concern about the impact of sand and gravel extraction on the Fox property. She asked for an update on property. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19874. VIII. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF HEARINGS OFFICIAL AND PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES LEVYING ASSESSMENTS Acting Assistant City Manager Linda Norris introduced the item and said that Les Lyle, Public Works Department, was present to answer questions. CB 4410--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, sanitary and storm sewers on Patterson Street from 40th Avenue to 350 feet south of 40th Avenue; and declaring an emergency (Contract 91-16). e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 12 7:30 p.m. e Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4410 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19875. CB 4411--An ordinance levying assessments for sanitary sewers in River Road area for Basins A, B, and C, amending the assessment roll attached to Ordinance No. 19757; and declaring an emergency (Contract 90-11). Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4411 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present e voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19876. IX. ORDINANCE CONCERNING JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER OF COUNTY FUNDS Acting Assistant City Manager Linda Norris introduced the item and said that staff was present to answer questions. CB 4412--An ordinance requesting that jurisdiction over portions of County roads be transferred to the City of Eugene; and declaring an emergency. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill, with unanimous consent of the council, be read the second time by council bill number only, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. Council Bill 4412 was read the second time by number only. Mr. Green moved, seconded by Ms. Ehrman, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and became Ordinance No. 19877. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 13 7:30 p.m. e The meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Re~~ --~ Micheal Gleason City Manager (Recorded by David Straub) cc73014.092 e . e MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 14, 1992 Page 14 7:30 p.m.