Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor observed that the setbacks were not as wide as previously suggested and asked why they had been reduced from the 75-foot width originally proposed. Ms. Walch responded that the revision was made after much input from the public in order to create an implementable approach. She said the proposed setbacks were consistent with Goal 5 setbacks and were within the scientific spectrum for water quality setbacks. Ms. Solomon arrived at 12:30 p.m. Ms. Taylor asked if other water quality strategies were being considered. Ms. Walch said a shading plan was being developed and there were regulatory restrictions on removal of vegetation. Ms. Bettman asked how many of the 75 miles of waterways not included in the proposal already had protections. Ms. Walch said all were protected with the exception of three or four miles within the West Eugene wetlands plan boundary. She said those sections did not have wetland buffer or setback protections but it was felt that the policies within the wetlands conservation plan area would prevail. Ms. Bettman remarked that the 40-foot setback for headwaters meant the wider the waterway, the less the setback. Ms. Walch agreed, but pointed out that the typical width of headwaters streams was seven feet. Mr. Bettman commented that 90 miles of waterways had been reduced to 15 miles and the ordinance allowed development and spraying of pesticides, herbicides and toxic fertilizers. She said it was unclear how much of the 15 miles would actually be protected and asserted the proposal was doing nothing to protect waterways. She said the funds used for planning projects and staffing the regulation and enforce- ment activities could be better used to purchase conservation easements on those waterways. She characterized the ordinance as “lip service” while the community’s most important resource essential to life was not drinkable or swimmable. Mr. Pryor thanked staff for an excellent job of trying to balance many needs and interests. He felt the proposal took a citywide approach by establishing major protections in the northern side of town and identifying and filling in gaps in the southern part. He appreciated the fact that the proposal did not look at one particular area for one particular interest. He said protecting water quality was essential and staff had made efforts to arrive at the best solution. He acknowledged that there was more that could still be done, but the proposal was a good first step and not “lip service.” Mr. Clark also appreciated the work that had gone into the proposal, but his challenge was the significant impact it had on a small number of people to address a value that was shared by everyone. He agreed that purchasing conservation easements was a good idea. He was also concerned about the campsites and other illegal activities along the river bank that were contributing to water quality problems. He asked how the City was mitigating that direct human impact on the river. Ms. Walch said she would obtain that informa- tion from Parks and Open Space staff as she knew there were programs to address that. Mr. Clark also expressed concern about the methodology for determining top of bank and procedures for resolving disputes. Ms. Taylor stated it was inexcusable not to do everything possible to protect water quality. She was most immediately concerned with taking action within two or three weeks after the public hearing as there were many people in the community who would be concerned about the proposal. She preferred to hold another work session to consider their input before taking action. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 14, 2008 Page 3 Work Session