09/30/1992 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e The council directed staff to develop an analysis for the use of contingency funds. Mr. Boles said that the next step for the council to consider was change to the City Code to ensure that soil aeration does not occur in areas that affect residents. Mr. Robinette questioned how much local control existed over DEQ processes. Mr. Gleason believed that the City had home rule authority to regulate how disposal occurs. He said that he did not believe that the City had the financial resources or knowledge to do so at the present time. Mr. Robinette suggested that the ordinance could be designed to include a right-of-action provision. Mr. Gleason said that development of the ordinance would be a major work item and he was unsure of its position in the queue of council priorities. Mr. Boles said that if the City were able to affect change at the permit level, it should do so; if ordinance changes were required, he believed the council should pursue those changes. Responding to a question from Mr. Nicholson, Doug Eveleth, Manager of Building and Permit Services, said that the City has a tank removal permitting process. He said that the City could regulate soil disposal through that process. However, Mr. Eveleth said that the issue the council needed to consider was how staff should address complaint calls from the public in light of the City's lack of financial and staff resources and the direction from Eugene e Decisions regarding land use enforcement. Mr. Boles suggested a two-step process: 1) address the issue immediately through the permit process, while recognizing that there are potential enforcement costs; and 2) consider the suggestion of Mr. Robinette, inclusion of a right-of-action provision in the code. Ms. Bascom asked Mr. Boles what would occur if the City failed to take action. Mr. Boles suggested that there were long-term consequences for a failure to address soil aeration through the permit process and ordinance revisions. The rate of tank removal does not appear to have peaked. He anticipated many more permit applications for tank removal. Responding to a question from Mr. Miller regarded the possibility of a coordi- nated solution with lane County, Mr. Gleason responded it might be possible to select a single centralized site for all such soil disposal in the county, pointing out that after three years the aeration process is complete and the soil is usable topsoil once more. However, securing agreements between jurisdictions and securing DEQ approval for the solution would take time and cost money. Mr. Rutan suggested that the City respond to the issue at hand and avoid establishing a precedent. He said that staff could provide information at a e MINUTES--City Council Work Session September 30, 1992 Page 2 11:30 a.m.