Item 9: Ordinance Concerning Stormwater Development Standards

Home Browse Search

KEPPLER Peggy A Subject: KELLY David S Tuesday, May 09,2006 9:32AM HANDY Rob (SMTP) ORTIZ Andrea F; BETTMAN Bonny S; PAPE' Gary D; PIERCY Kitty; TAYLOR Dennis M; COREY Kurt A; KEPPLER Peggy A; KELLY David S Re: stormwater follow up From: Sent: To: Cc: Rob - I've cc'd the city manager and a couple other staff on this reply, because your question is something I really want to press staff on - both for RR/SC and with regard to our citywide stormwater system. I agree with you that stormwater issues in RR/SC are very important. What I was getting at last night is that I don't believe that this ordinance (or its associated manual) is where such things like the character of public drainage ways are regulated. My questions are along the lines of: (1) What qllows a current open storm drainage to remain open? Or what could prohibit it? (2)How does the answer to #1 change if there is new development like a subdivision that involves PEPI work that improves a street and therefore its drainage? (3)What citywide policies exist in support of using open public drainageways rather than piped - in both existing and new development? (4)Related to #3: To they extent such policies don't exist, where could we consider adding them? In the currently proposed ordinance? In some other ordinance? In some motion directing the city manager to revise some administrative manual? Regards, David Rob Handy wrote: > Hi David, Bonny, Andrea, Gary and Kitty > > David: You asked staff to get back to you about Portland and their 500 > sqft. threshold for ordinance exemptions, referenced in some > testimony. I believe that answer will be one of apples and oranges---I > think Portland pipes both waste and stormwater concurrently, a hard > situation to compare. Gresham's experience might be a better one to > compare---their exemption threshold was originally 5000, was reduced > later to 2500, and I believe there are rumblings to reduce it further. > > David, you have been a proponent of neighborhoods all absorbing their > share of infill growth, so we don't have to expand the UGB. In RR and > SC we are in the midst of absorbing more than our share of > growth---and given that we are/ have been an existing community, not a > greenfield that Eugene is growing into---that surging growth is being > questioned as to whether we have effective standards to guide infill > and stormwater issues. Opportunity Siting has potential, particularly > if embraced by responsive infill standards. > > Stormwater issues are critical to how build out occurs here in RR/SC > ---and the boom is on. Will we end up with infill and stormwater > guidances that support our wonderful soils and physical > characteristics of these neighborhoods we cherish? Or will our > absorbing our "share" of growth result in pervious surfaces (and their > attendant characteristics) disappearing in a slew of concrete? > 1