Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

In response to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Schoening affirmed that the motion was limited to stormwater management. Mayor Piercy asked if there were elements the council could provide direction on that could be implemented in the interim. Mr. Schoening replied that it was definitely possible, especially given that the work that had been done and documented in the Puget Sound area was available to the City. Mayor Piercy asked how the council could address neighborhoods’ fears that they would lose the ability to have the changes they wanted to have while waiting for the council to move forward with code changes. City Manager Taylor surmised that the mayor wanted the council to be able to direct staff to go for the “low-hanging fruit” in the potential low-impact development standards. He commented that there were always more things that needed to be done, especially when it involved Public Works and PDD. He said the challenge lay in doing as much as staff could with the current level of service and the departments’ stretched resources while also identifying and prioritizing those additional things. Ms. Bettman asked if the River Road Basin Plan had been completed. Mr. Schoening replied that it was not done; rather, it was an ongoing process with the County and the two community organizations as partners and the end date had been moved to July 2007. Ms. Bettman recalled that the debate about using swales versus “pipe and fill” was prevalent in the River Road neighborhood. She asserted that staff had been consistent in saying that the standards were there and it was up to the development to choose whether to utilize one kind of treatment or another. She alleged that staff consistently said that they wanted a citywide approach. She did not believe that the City could have a citywide approach because of the geographical differences across the city. She felt staff “might want to look at different neighborhoods that have different geography” and then develop different strategies in those neighborhoods. She said the City had been using a “one size fits all which [the City] had very little success imposing on the neighborhoods.” Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to include in the FY08 Planning Division work program and the Stormwater Management Team work program a com- prehensive review of the Eugene Code and administrative policies and procedures to identify barriers and regulatory or incentive-based approaches to increase the use of low-impact devel- opment practices. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add to the end of the motion “for stormwater management practices that are consistent with densification policies and code provisions within the urban growth boundary.” The maker and the second accepted the friendly amendment. Ms. Taylor offered Option 1 in the AIS as a friendly amendment. The maker of the motion de- clined to accept the amendment. Ms. Taylor moved, as a substitute motion, Option 1 in the Agenda Item Summary which sought to reprioritize the FY 07 Planning Division work program and direct the City Manager to repri- oritize the Stormwater Management Team work program to include a comprehensive review of the Eugene Code and administrative policies and procedures to identify barriers and regulatory or incentive-based approaches to increase the use of low-impact development practices with the inclusion of Ms. Bettman’s friendly amendment. The motion died for lack of a second. MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 17, 2007 Page 3 Work Session