CC Minutes - 05/08/06 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Keppler affirmed that the ordinance essentially required someone who was building new development over a certain size to put systems in place to protect water quality. She added that it did not include any design parameters, but it did dictate that someone creating an impervious surface would have to show where the stormwater would be shunted and demon- strate that it would be treated if the impervious area was 3,000 square feet or greater. Councilor Kelly asked if a public drainage way would be prohibited in any way should this ordinance be passed. Ms. Keppler responded that it would not. Councilor Kelly surmised that the ordinance did not have anything to do with such issues. Councilor Bettman asserted that the reason there were no design parameters in the ordinance was because the design parameters were going to be adopted by an administrative order that would be enabled by the ordinance. She said in terms of the waterway, the ordinance would not change the disposition of such a waterway unless development was planned. She did not think the council would be able to address the issues if it came back to the council as an action item. She preferred for it to come back as a work session. Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance superseded the basin plan. Ms. Keppler replied that it did not supersede the plan; rather it was a complement to it. She said the basin plans may identify all of the major stormwater conveyance systems throughout the River Road/Santa Clara basin, just as it did throughout the other seven basins, but it was not meant to direct exactly how the water should be conveyed through the system. She reiterated that the ordinance merely looked at new development and what it needed to do with stormwater before the water left a development site. Councilor Bettman asked if “all of the details” were contained in the administrative order. Ms. Keppler responded that the sizing and design standards were there, but the requirements came from Chapter 9. Continuing, Councilor Bettman took issue with the exemption for a single-family and a double-family residential structure. She commented that it was interesting to see the argument that one of the reasons this exemption was made was so there would be equity throughout the City in terms of developing such a dwelling. Regarding River Road, however, she wondered how much of new development would be excluded from the ordinance. She believed that if the City really wanted its stormwater conveyance, flood control, and pollution control to be sustainable, the City needed to move more into “green infrastructure.” In response to a question from Councilor Kelly, Ms. Keppler affirmed that the master plans identified the capacity that the City wanted to have in the system and identified areas where they were deficient. She said the ordinance in front of the council was for development applications that came in. She clarified that if a land use application came in, such as a subdivision or a partition including a public street in which a developer would be required to construct public improvements, that would be addressed in the ordinance. Councilor Kelly asked what would govern those privately engineered public improvements at present. Ms. Keppler replied that currently, stormwater conveyance had destination standards in Chapter 9. She said it dictated that such public improvements would be constructed to standards that had been provided through Chapter 7 or in a public improvements design standards manual established by the City Engineer. She noted that the latter had been adopted in 2002 and was currently being revised. She related that the manual stated that stormwater facilities would be constructed to meet flood control levels. She stressed that it did not require keeping any open drainage and it did not require any pollution reduction. It also had no site development requirements. MINUTES—Eugene City Council May 8, 2006 Page 16 Regular Meeting