Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark wondered what it would cost to purchase conservation easements on the properties impacted by the proposal. He asked if there were other options similar to purchasing easements that would mitigate impact other than regulating top of bank and protection setbacks. He was interested in ways to protect water quality without impacting property owners. He disagreed with staff’s conclusion that the regulations would not cause a reduction in property value. He pointed out there was also no evidence that the remedy would actually succeed at increasing water quality. He said everyone valued cleaner waterways, but the cost was being imposed on a very few property owners and that was unfair. Ms. Walch said it was difficult to measure the impact of one strategy in isolation given the variables in the watershed; however, the City would continue to monitor water quality and a successful outcome of the proposal, all other things being equal, would be no worsening of water quality. She noted the proposal was to protect, not improve, water quality. Mr. Pryor asked for clarification on how the proposal would affect current property owners. Ms. Walch said the proposal was modeled on Goal 5 in that existing impacts, such as structures and landscaping, would be grandfathered in; owners could continue with those uses but new uses would be limited. She said the owner could utilize the property for its intended use, but in a manner that protected water quality. Mr. Pryor liked Amendment C related to telecommunications. He asked for an explanation of the additional reporting requirements under Option C1. Ms. Walch explained that the difference between options C1 and C2 with respect to telecommunications was with respect to water quality mitigation. If an existing satellite dish had a small foundation that needed to be enlarged, the lost water quality would need to be mitigated. She said administrative rules were being developed to lay the framework for quantifying the impact and the mitigation actions which could be taken. Mr. Zelenka reiterated that the proposal was a water protection ordinance, not a water quality enhancement ordinance. He believed that the various measures would cumulatively enhance water quality. He said it was less expensive to address water quality at this point tha treating it at the other end. He felt it was unreason- able for people whose property abutted a waterway to have an expectation that there would be no impact on the property; there were responsibilities that accompanied owning such property. He asked why certain waterways on the map were not being recommended for protection. Ms. Walch said those waterways in the West Eugene wetlands area were covered by the wetland conservation plan and policies and it was logical to honor those. Mr. Zelenka commended staff for a well done proposal. Ms. Bettman pointed out a typographical error on page 152. She said the reference should be to effective date. She asked to what extent the waterways were currently polluted. Ms. Walch said the waterways on the map were either not meeting state standards or drained into a waterway that was not meeting state standards. Ms. Bettman said that meant the proposal would maintain the pollution status quo and perhaps not become more polluted. Ms. Walch said that was not the intent; the proposal would prevent further pollution and combined with all of the other strategies was intended over time to improve water quality. Ms. Bettman asserted that the ordinance would not reverse existing pollution and because it was bundled with other practices its specific benefit could not be delineated. She asked if the waterways would be monitored and a baseline for pollution established before the ordinance was implemented. Ms. Walch said the monitoring that had occurred over the past 11 years would continue; that included monitoring stations on MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 18, 2008 Page 3 Work Session