CC Minutes - 09/17/08 Work Session

Home Browse Search

stormwater management practices, but with both types of stormwater management practices in place the City would need to be equipped to maintain them. Mr. Clark asked if the Planning Commission’s current work plan could accommodate LID code amendments or would it need to be incorporated in next year’s work plan. Mr. McVey said there was no explicit part of the current work plan that addressed the subject directly, although some elements were related. He said one approach would be to scrutinize proposed code amendments from the perspective of how they would impact the City’s efforts to implement LID; a more focused effort would need to be specifically included in the work plan. Mr. Clark asked if any of the administrative integration elements would need to be taken into consideration as the City worked toward compliance with House Bill 3337 and analysis of the buildable lands supply. Mr. McVey said the initial administrative adjustments would not have any significant affect on buildable lands, but that would need to be addressed in any proposed code amendments. Ms. Taylor preferred not to use the acronym LID as it was already in use for other subjects. She asked why maintenance costs for LID stormwater management would be comparable to costs for more traditional approaches. Mr. McVey said LID maintenance would require different methods and equipment and the City would need to be equipped to maintain both types of infrastructure. Ms. Taylor asked what council priorities might be in conflict with LID. Mr. McVey said LID regulated development and could create counter-balancing purposes if using natural features onsite was not feasible, such as on a densely developed downtown site. City Manager Jon Ruiz clarified that it could be physically challenging to install LID infrastructure in a densely developed environment. Ms. Taylor asked if reviving the City’s dormant tree ordinance would assist with implementing LID. Mr. McVey said there was some potential to further restrict tree removal, consistent with LID practices, although there was some tree protection already in place. Ms. Taylor asked staff to determine the status of the tree ordinance that had been remanded by the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Mr. Pryor expected there would be conflicts between LID implementation and other policies and encouraged the City to actively seek out those points of conflict so they could be resolved early in the process. He said preserving the ability to incorporate new technologies as they emerged, such as permeable surfaces, was an important aspect of LID implementation. Ms. Solomon said the conflicts alluded to underscored the importance of maintaining LID practices as elective, not mandatory. She said the City should encourage the use of LID principles, but not require them. She urged staff to continue to develop incentives to use LID practices as that was a more productive way to increase participation. Mr. McVey said making LID optional or mandatory was one of the policy decisions the council would need to make. Ms. Piercy agreed with the use of incentives to encourage green practices. She said that Portland was a leader in the area and there were many good examples that could be studied. Ms. Taylor preferred to require the use of green practices instead of making them discretionary. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 17, 2008 Page 2 Work Session