HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/23/00 Work Session MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--City Hall
February 23, 1999
5:30 p.m.
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott
Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor.
COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Pap~.
Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order.
I. COUNCIL WORK SESSION
A. Mayor's Youth Leadership
The City Councilors introduced themselves to the youth leaders and noted the high school and middle schools
in their wards.
Beth Tindall of Churchill High School discussed the opportunities offered to students at her school, focusing
on the alternative high school program. The program served 107 students and is growing in popularity. The
program was offered to students with a variety of needs that were not met in a regular high school setting, and
was particularly useful to students who were considering leaving school. Ms. Tindall noted the program's 87-
percent graduation rate and said it had recently been expanded to serve students in the 9th and 10th grades.
Mr. Fart arrived at the meeting.
Peter Reed, North Eugene High School, discussed the intersection of Silver Lane and River Road, which was
the second worst intersection in Eugene for accidents. The intersection was heavily used by North Eugene
High School students. He said the intersections at both on-ramps to Beltline and River Road were also a
concern to students. Mr. Reed said the North Eugene High School student council had put together a paper in
opposition to allowing the zone change for the Eugene Sand & Gravel Pit to be located off River Road
because of the increase in truck traffic it would generate through those intersections. He requested the
council's support.
Mr. Reed noted that a group of students at the high school known as the Young Politicians and members of
the Associated Student Body members were conducting a voter registration campaign among students and the
community. There was the possibility of a voter registration competition between local high schools.
Brooke Jones and Evan Hunter of Sheldon High School addressed the council. Ms. Jones said she was new to
the school and district and was very excited about the Mayor's Youth Leadership Program. She termed the
Eugene School District "amazing" when contrasted to her former district, which she had enjoyed but which
was under budgetary pressures. Ms. Jones said she felt privileged to go to classes where the teachers wanted
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 1
Work Session
to be there and were excited to teach. She enjoyed the more recent text books to be found in her school, and
her participation in and opportunity to travel to competitions with the speech and debate team. Ms. Jones
said the community's support for the high schools was phenomenal. She thanked the council for its support
of youth in Eugene.
Mr. Evans reported that students in the leadership class at Sheldon High School each pledged five hours of
community service to United Way. He said that students at his school were also very excited and happy
about the new youth sports parks and looked forward to their construction.
Zak Zerzan from Marist High School reminded the council of his previous report on the poor condition of the
intersection of Goodpasture Island and Kingsley roads. He said that growth in the area has had a
considerable impact on the intersection and it was no longer adequate to support the traffic that goes through
it. Students traveling through the area to reach Marist High School were at risk. Mr. Zerzan said that he had
requested a traffic signal at the intersection, and the City indicated to him one would be installed, but that had
not yet occurred. He requested the council's assistance in getting the traffic signal installed soon.
Shane Skyler and Josh Jordan of New Roads joined the council. Mr. Skyler discussed heroin use near his
school, which was located at 7th Avenue and Van Buren Street. He said that students found dirty syringes
near the school and in nearby parks, and did not feel safe. Mr. Skyler requested the council's help in reducing
heroin use near the school. Mr. Jordan said that many students at New Roads were training for jobs but many
were not old enough to legally work, and they wanted to work. Mr. Skyler agreed, and suggested that there
could be City work that young New Roads students could do during the summer.
Ms. Nathanson asked if Public Works responded to calls regarding dirty syringes in the right-of-way and in
parks. City Manager Jim Johnson said that Public Works staff were trained to clean up such materials safely
in the parks, and should be contacted when such items are found. Citizens with questions should contact
Parks Maintenance staff for information on the disposal of needles. City staff would not respond to calls
regarding syringes on private party.
Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the traffic signal discussed by Mr. Zerzan, Mr.
Johnson said that he would check on the timing of installation with Public Works staff.
Mr. Kelly thanked the student leaders for their attendance. He said it was always a positive experience.
Regarding Ms. Jones' remarks, Mr. Kelly said that the council was not the governing body for the school
districts, and he suggested the youth leadership visit the two local districts and encourage a similar forum
before the boards.
Regarding the suggestion that the City provide work for youth during the summer, Mr. Kelly said the idea
was intriguing and asked the manager to consider if there could be some sort of summer school opportunity
with a work component. He suggested staff consult with Northwest Youth Corps on the legal issues related
to youth employment. Mr. Johnson agreed.
Mr. Kelly wished the North Eugene High School representatives well in their voter registration drive.
Regarding the requests for traffic signals, Mr. Rayor said that the City was attempting to manage a large
transportation system with ever-increasing demands, and part of that effort was encouraging people to use
alternate modes of transportation. He said that the City lacked money to quickly facilitate the passage of all
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 2
Work Session
those with cars during peak hours. Mr. Rayor said he did not want to make promises about traffic signals
when the council was trying to move in another direction.
Ms. Taylor congratulated the North Eugene students for attempting to make a difference about the proposed
sand and gravel operation. She noted the council's lack of jurisdiction over the matter and encouraged the
students to discuss the issue with the Board of County Commissioners. She encouraged student drivers to get
out of their cars and use alternate modes of transportation.
Mr. Fart noted his service on the Bethel School Board prior to his service on the council. He said that
cooperation between the school districts and the City had resulted in many capital improvements and different
programs that served youth. He said the council was very interested in helping schools in any way possible.
Mr. Fart said that the City had a council committee focused on youth and youth homelessness, and he would
suggest that the committee discuss employment for youth 14 and under at its next meeting, scheduled March
1.
Mr. Fart commended Churchill High School's alternative school, and said it was a model for other high
schools.
Mayor Torrey thanked the student leaders for their presentations.
B. Items from the Mayor, Council, and City Manager
Mr. Lee passed.
Mr. Fart asked what triggered the issuance of a traffic ticket as opposed to a warning. He said that a young
high school student had received an $89 ticket for riding a bicycle at night without a light, and he wanted to
know why a ticket would be written in that situation as opposed to a warning.
Mr. Meisner passed.
Mr. Rayor passed.
Ms. Nathanson indicated she would not be present at the meeting during which the Eugene Water & Electric
Board charter amendment related to telecommunications was voted on, and distributed a memorandum
outlining a proposal for a joint resolution to be adopted by EWEB and the City to clarify the intent of the
charter amendment.
Mr. Kelly noted the outline's focus on the Internet and asked that any joint resolution mention other forms of
service, such as cable television and local telephone service, etc. Ms. Nathanson concurred.
Mr. Rayor supported Ms. Nathanson's suggested resolution, and said that he also wished to include the points
captured in EWEB's resolution of February 14, 2000, regarding nonrecourse bonds, bond elections, and
public involvement. Mr. Johnson said a joint resolution could be developed, but it could not be passed until
after the council placed the amendment on the ballot because the board did not meet before that could occur.
There was no objection to Ms. Nathanson's request that a joint resolution be developed on the basis of her
outline and the comments of other councilors.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 3
Work Session
Mr. Kelly passed.
Ms. Taylor passed.
Mayor Torrey reported that he had attended a meeting regarding the Job Faire, and participated
in a discussion of the importance of providing a skill center for young people who do not plan to
go to college. He suggested the youth leaders discuss the topic and provide feedback to the
council.
C. Work Session: Neighborhood Services Redesign
Beth Bridges, Planning and Development Department, provided an overview of the Neighborhood Redesign
Subcommittee's recommendations for the Neighborhood Services Redesign. She identified the following
policy issues for council discussion: 1) the definition of an active neighborhood; 2) discussion of
neighborhood boundaries; and 3) the newsletter policy and the issue of who was responsible for the contents
of the newsletters.
Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to implement the
suggested definition of active neighborhood associations.
Mr. Kelly said that neighborhood associations were one of the best ways to get public involvement and build
community. He supported the motion, and thanked the staff and neighborhood leaders involved in the
redesign subcommittee. He said that the subcommittee had done great work.
Mr. Meisner generally supported the recommendations. Regarding the recommendations for minimum
attendance at general meetings, he questioned the inclusion of the executive committee members toward that
minimum count, because otherwise he believed that general meetings would consist of the same people as
executive committee meetings.
Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by revising the
recommendation regarding attendance at general meetings as follows: "Conduct a
minimum of four general meetings annually. Three of the four meetings must have a
minimum of ten members in attendance, not counting executive committee members."
Mr. Meisner said that given the council had more than doubled the program budget, he wanted an outcome in
the form of increased citizen involvement, with different and more people.
Mr. Kelly noted that the size of executive committees varied from association to association. His
organization, for example, had as many as ten to fifteen people on the executive committee because it was a
"come one, come all" situation. Mr. Meisner said that he understood that, but reiterated he wanted to ensure
that the associations attracted more, different people.
Ms. Nathanson agreed with Mr. Meisner, but said that Mr. Kelly's point raised an issue of what constituted
an executive committee. She said that having an open executive committee meeting was one thing, but
calling everyone who attends the meeting members of the executive committee was another. She asked if the
City distinguished between an elected executive committee and the members of the public who happened to
attend that meeting. Ms. Bridges responded that the executive committee members were elected by the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 4
Work Session
neighborhood associations. Mr. Kelly clarified he was referring to an elected group that included a finite, but
not fixed, number of individuals.
The amendment to the motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Kelly voting no.
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Richie Weinman of Planning and Development
Department confirmed that neighborhood clean-ups sponsored by the neighborhood would be
considered a general meeting.
Mr. Lee observed that, given his ward representation, he should oppose all the recommendations
because they meant the West University Neighborhood Association would not qualify as
"active"and would continually be in "intervention mode." He believed the uniqueness of that
organization's situation as the neighborhood association in an area dominated by students
should be recognized. However, he believed the intent of the recommendations was to raise
standards for the program and for that reason was in support of the motion.
Mr. Farr emphasized the importance of leadership training for the neighborhood organizations.
He said that the program must be marketed to residents to encourage participation, and he
would interested to see how the City incorporated marketing into the program.
Ms. Nathanson asked if any neighborhood association had met informally or otherwise with a
school site council to discuss issues of mutual concern. Mr. Weinman said that neighborhood
associations frequently met in schools and publicized meetings through school newsletters, but
he was unaware of any formal process for such joint meetings, or of any actual meetings
between site councils and neighborhood associations. He suggested that synergy might be
achieved through the Matching Grants Program, because site councils could be applicants for
grants to underwrite projects on school property. Ms. Nathanson said that would be great, and
she hoped it occurred. She encouraged the neighborhood associations to initiate such meetings
with site councils and other organizations in their areas.
Mayor Torrey said he received many calls from youth and their parents about youth activities in
north Eugene, and many of those calls originated with those living outside the city. He
suggested it would be helpful if the River Road/Santa Clara Neighborhood Organization reached
out to north Eugene schools.
The main motion passed, 7:0.
Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to
implement the suggested definition of neighborhood boundaries.
Mr. Meisner said that one of the boundary standards was that an association should not be
divided by a major natural or manmade barrier, such as the river and limited access arterials. He
said that
Whiteaker was divided by 1-105, and asked if there were other neighborhoods divided by a similar
barrier. Mr. Weinman responded that the Active Bethel Citizens association was divided by
Beltline, and the Harlow Neighbors association was divided by 1-105 and Beltline. Mr. Meisner
questioned whether the City would want to divide those associations on the basis of those
standards, or except existing neighborhood associations from the standard. Ms. Bridges stated
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 5
Work Session
the recommendation was that boundaries of those neighborhoods would be called into question
and reexamined.
Mr. Meisner said that he had been contacted by residents in his neighborhood with interest in
dividing the neighborhood and forming a new association. He said that the recommendations do
not include a process that allowed a group of neighbors not currently allied with an existing
organization to question the boundaries or form a new association.
Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend the motion by
modifying the recommendations on page 161 of the staff report with the
following: "If an active or semi-active neighborhood association no longer
meets a size limitation or characteristic listed above, or if five or more people
from the same geographic segment in an existing neighborhood association
have contacted the City's Neighborhood Services Office with their desire to
form their own neighborhood association, its borders may be called into
question."
Mr. Meisner said that given the fact association budgets were based on an association's size, it
was unlikely a neighborhood association would choose to divide itself. The amendment gave
residents another option.
Mr. Kelly said he understood that some people might want to split away from an existing
organization, he believed Mr. Meisner's concerns were addressed by the recommendations
before the council. He was very concerned about the fact a great deal of expense could be
incurred by five individuals who, for example, just did not like the chair of the existing
organization. He noted that most associations' budgets were largely directed toward newsletter
production, and questioned whether budget was actually a motivation for keeping a neighborhood
whole. He said that nothing precluded a person now from asking the existing association to
change the boundaries if that person had the support of a majority of neighbors.
Mr. Meisner did not agree with Mr. Kelly that his concerns were addressed by the
subcommittee's recommendation. He wanted to create the possibility of new organizations,
pointing out that the new organization would still have to meet the standards established through
the program. He wanted to base neighborhoods on interest and commitment, not simply the
number of units in an area or geographic barriers. The recommendations did not allow neighbors
to empower themselves.
Ms. Nathanson suggested a parallel in the motion to how items got on the ballot; the council
could place something on the ballot, or citizens could collect signatures and place an item on the
ballot. She asked for staff input on the motion. Mr. Weinman said he tended to think that if
people wanted to split off from the existing organization, they should make an attempt to go
through the existing organization first.
Mr. Kelly was concerned that the motion to amend could lead to community Balkanization. He
believed that if there was sufficient interest in an area in forming a new organization, it would be
relatively easy for 20 people of the 300 units needed to attend a neighborhood meeting and
succeed in their objective.
Mr. Rayor questioned 300 housing units as an optimum size for a neighborhood organization,
pointing out that there would be potentially more than 200 such organizations if their size was
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 6
Work Session
based on that standard. He believed that optimal minimum size was 1,200 housing units. He
opposed the motion because he did not think it would be good for either the associations or City
staff.
The motion to amend failed, 4:3; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Meisner
voting yes.
Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Weinman said that it often cost as much staff time
to process a small neighborhood newsletter as a large neighborhood newsletter. Mr. Farr
confirmed that the associations determined the number of annual meetings they would have. Mr.
Weinman agreed.
Ms. Taylor wanted more time for the discussion, and more time for input from the neighborhood
leaders who were present. She suggested the council continue the discussion at a later date.
Mr. Meisner said that his amendment had been very important to him. He reminded the council
that it had modified the purpose statement and mission for the program so it was no longer
neighborhood-association based. He said that, based on the defeat of his amendment, he would
vote against the main motion. He was unhappy with a system where the only way neighbors
could organize was to go through an existing neighborhood organization, which could be
ineffective, dormant, or hostile.
The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Meisner voting no
Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to
implement the purpose/roles for neighborhood newsletters.
Mr. Kelly argued for a change to the policy that focused on the shared responsibility of the
association and City. He said newsletters were voices of the associations, and the funding came
from the City. He was concerned that the recommendations in the meeting packet were at odds
with involving the public and soliciting public input. He said the guidelines for newsletters should
be sufficiently clear to guide both staff and the association.
Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to amend the motion by changing
the bold face on the bottom of page 163 of the meeting packet to read
"Newsletters are publications of the neighborhood associations, financed by
the City. Newsletters must meet guidelines adopted by the NLC and City
staff. The City Publisher may question a part of the newsletter only if it fails
to comply with those adopted guidelines."
Mr. Meisner clarified that "may question" could be interpreted as "may remove." Mr. Kelly
concurred.
Ms. Bridges said that Mr. Kelly's motion reflected what staff was trying to convey under "City
Publisher" in the chart in the meeting packet entitled "Roles in Neighborhood Newsletters." City
Attorney Glenn Klein said that the effect of the motion was quite different. Currently, the City was
the legal entity publishing the newsletter, and if there was a problem the City was liable. Mr.
Klein believed that Mr. Kelly's motion placed that liability on the neighborhood association as a
separate legal entity.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Weinman said that Mr. Kelly's motion would make life easier for staff by removing it from the
role of censor. He noted that generally, staff was able to work out concerns about materials
published in the newsletters with the editors, but there could be instances where what was
published could be offensive to some, and currently the City would not let that happen.
Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to table the motion 6:1; Mr. Farr
voting no.
Ms. Nathanson acknowledged the excellent work of the redesign subcommittee and staff.
D. Work Session and Action: Proposed Resolution on Endangered Species Act
Peter Ruffier, Public Works Department, noted that the National Marine Fisheries Service had
recently published its proposed protection regulations under Section 4(d) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), which would cover the conservation of the Spring Chinook, which is listed as
threatened under the act. He requested direction from the council on the City's response to the
draft rules.
Mr. Ruffier provided an overview of the staff memorandum in the meeting packet, which included
several options for the City's response to the listing. He identified three policy options for the
council to consider: 1) Option A, the reactive, minimalist compliance approach; 2) Option B,
proactive development of a compliance program; and 3) Option C, proactive development of a
compliance and recovery program. Mr. Ruffier said that options A and B would meet the letter of
the law but be respectively more reactive to regulatory directives and more focused on protection
and the direct avoidance of a take. Option C directed staff to undertake efforts to improve
conditions for salmon and actively work toward its recovery. Restoration of salmon habitat and
support for the species recovery would be the primary focus of the Option C approach. Staff was
seeking direction from the council so it could be prepared to comment about the rules to the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Mr. Ruffier recommended Option C as consistent with past City policies and current City
practices.
Neil Bj0rklund, Planning and Development Department, discussed the activities of City staff
since its last presentation to the council. Those activities included the preparation of a grant
application to the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Memorandum of Understanding in
conjunction with the other partners participating in the Metro ESA Team. He introduced Natural
Resources Planner Eric Wold and noted that Mr. Wold's position was authorized in the last
budget by the Budget Committee. He said Mr. Wold brought tremendous capability to staff and
was largely responsible for the grant application and MOU.
Mr. Bj0rklund discussed the proposed Section 4(d) rules. He said that the rules established
broad prohibitions but did not specifically indicate what the City could or could not do, or what it
should do to avoid a take, which is interpreted as harm to the species or its habitat. The rule
assigned limits to the prohibitions by excluding certain programs from the prohibitions. Thirteen
of those limits were outlined in the rule, but most had little applicability to Eugene. Mr. Bj0rklund
said that the five most relevant were discussed in the staff memorandum.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 8
Work Session
Mr. Bj0rklund stressed the optional nature of the limits for local governments. He said that there
were legal benefits to the limits but they required some effort to secure. Staff believed that there
were two different levels of protective standard: the standard one must meet to avoid take was
lower than the standard of protection needed to achieve the limits. That was particularly true for
the limit focused on new urban development, which was of concern to most Oregon
municipalities because it was considered vague and set a high standard that would be hard to
meet in its current form. The approach was designed to apply to large tracts of land brought into
a city at one time, rather than individual parcels or subdivisions.
Mr. Johnson reiterated the optional nature of the standards outlined by the National Marine
Fisheries Service and said there had been considerable concern expressed about required
setbacks. Such setbacks were not required. Mr. Bj0rklund added that it was a requirement to
have adequate buffers only if the City was getting a limit.
Mr. Lee noted the absence of Councilor Gary PapS, who had requested that if there were to be
changes made to the resolution, it be pulled for later consideration. He suggested that the
council postpone action on the resolution before the body if changes were made, and that the
item be added to a future Consent Calendar.
Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct staff to provide comments
to the National Marine Fisheries Service consistent with Option C.
Mr. Farr suggested that the motion was a "nice, feel-good motion." He said that the City wanted
to do what it could to protect the salmon but the federal rules placed some onerous guidelines on
Eugene that could potentially be very expensive to meet. He said the proactive approach
reflected in Option C added to that expense. He asked who was going to pay those costs. Mr.
Farr said the dollars were going to have to come out of other programs, necessitating cuts to
fund the option.
Mr. Johnson said the council would have to direct him to prepare a work program to be reviewed
and approved by the council, and that work program would be key to the budget. Mr. Farr noted
the expense associated with development of the work program. He did not see how the City
could fit the program into everything else it had to do and in light of demands to restore
recreation programs, as he presumed it would be underwritten by General Fund money. Mr.
Johnson indicated it was likely grant funds and Stormwater Fund dollars would support the
program. Mr. Farr said that eased his concerns somewhat but raised concerns about the
projects that would not be funded by Stormwater Funds directed toward the program.
Mr. Farr asked the council not to interpret a vote against the motion as being opposition to the
restoration of the Spring Chinook salmon run on the Willamette River. He had grave concerns
about the funding of the program, "beyond what the federal government was already in effect
forcing us to do" when the City was facing serous budget cuts.
Mr. Farr asked Mr. Bj0rklund how long there had been a Spring Chinook run in the upper
Willamette River. Mr. Bj0rklund responded that there were two runs, one of which was the wild
run in the spring. There was a fall run of nonnative fish. He confirmed that there had always
been an upper Willamette Spring Chinook run.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 9
Work Session
Regarding cost, Mr. Bj0rklund reported staff was seeking federal grant money being passed
through the State for study of fish habitat in the metropolitan area. Staff would look at the habitat
to help it prioritize where the community could get the most results for the money spent. There
was also federal funding available for restoration work, and staff would work to tap those funds.
Mr. Farr acknowledged those funds, but believed they would be insufficient in the long-term,
forcing the council to turn to the General Fund.
Ms. Nathanson noted the City's success in lobbying for grant dollars in the past and said she did
not think the option under consideration necessarily obligated the City to reallocate local funds.
Regarding the availability of Stormwater Funds, Ms. Nathanson noted the relative lack of
acquisition activity with the use of those dollars and said she remained eager to see that funding
spent on property acquisition and the "hard scape" of stormwater needs as opposed to brochures
and forums.
Ms. Nathanson said the topic before the council was highly technical and largely political.
Decisions would be made in some cases on speculation rather than fact.
Regarding the limit on urban development, Ms. Nathanson questioned its applicability to Eugene.
Mr. Bj0rklund said that it might not apply. The City did have urban reserves that could be
planned for, such as the Royal Avenue nodal development. If in an area was primarily
undeveloped, the limit could apply. Staff would discuss that aspect of the limit in its response to
the rules. He emphasized the need to avoid take, and said that staff thought at this point,
avoidance of take was a lower bar than the option of meeting the requirements for a limit.
Mr. Kelly complimented staff on its work. He suggested that the issue was much larger than the
health of the salmon. He said the health of the salmon was an indicator of the health of the
overall environment, which was an indicator of human health and subsequently the economy.
In response to Mr. Farr's comments about the cost of preparing a work program, Mr. Kelly said
the City had no choice under federal law but to develop some kind of work program to avoid a
take. He noted the strong level of support shown by citizens in the recent community survey for
the City to do more than the minimum requirements to protect the salmon. He said that the
council would have a chance to review the budget numbers when the work program was done.
Ms. Taylor voiced strong support for Option C. She said that the approach contributed to the
health of the entire community.
Mr. Meisner favored Option C as the most reasonable response to the listing. He agreed with
Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the need to use Stormwater Funds for property acquisition.
He was less concerned about the cost of restoration than he was about the potential costs of
education and enforcement the program would require with respect to private activities the City
did not currently regulate. He looked forward to reviewing the work program developed by staff.
Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the use of legislative format to identify changes in
documents before the council.
Mr. Rayor asked if adoption of Option C gave Eugene the ability to allow large-scale urban
developments to occur that otherwise might not happen. Mr. Ruffier said no. Option C would
allow the City to start developing a program consistent with the limits established by NMFS. Mr.
Bj0rklund said that new urban development consistent with the proposed resolution could be
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 10
Work Session
consistent with the take limit on new urban development, but it was not a given. Mr. Rayor asked
if failure to adopt Option C could preclude large developments. Mr. Ruffier said that the answer
depended on whether the development would result in a take.
Mayor Torrey said that the issue was extremely technical, and City staff was very knowledgeable
about it. He said that while the council was discussing a take of an endangered species, it was
also talking about the potential taking of private property rights, and the council should keep that
in mind. He emphasized the need for public understanding of the implications of the council's
actions.
Mayor Torrey indicated interest in having more information about the metropolitan effort
regarding the listing, and questioned what happened to the rivers that flowed into the community
from another part of the county.
Mr. Lee said that one of the deficiencies of the council's goals process was its failure to tie goals
to the budget process. He said he was working with staff to modify the matrix to include the
fiscal impacts of the goals.
Mr. Fart believed that the City was "breaking trail" and would not receive much direction from
NMFS as it developed its work program. He said that added to the cost of the program.
Ms. Taylor noted changes suggested to the resolution and expressed confusion about what the
council was voting on. The council confirmed it was voting on direction to staff regarding its
response to the 4(d) rule. Mayor Torrey requested a staff opinion on whether the motion was
more restrictive than the resolution. Staff said no.
Mr. Kelly asked if the resolution was the first step in "fleshing out" Option C. Mr. Bj6rklund said
yes. Mr. Kelly confirmed said that Option C, as written in the document, was not any more
restrictive than the resolution as written. Given that, he wished to amend the motion.
Mr. Kelly moved to amend the motion to direct staff to adopt Option C as City
policy.
Because of a lack of time, Mr. Kelly withdrew his amendment, but believed that issue of overall
program direction needed to be revisited for the benefit of staff soon.
Ms. Nathanson left the meeting at 7:34 p.m.
There was general agreement with a comment from Mr. Meisner that, given the discussion, the
resolution should not be placed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Fart voting no.
The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 23, 2000 Page 11
Work Session