Laserfiche WebLink
impervious surface area of a development. Mr. Rayor favored the proposal but wanted a <br />breakdown of the fee assessment to ensure that residential properties did not subsidize <br />commercial and industrial properties. City Manager Jim Johnson indicated that the proposal <br />would be put into ordinance form and the council would receive more information as well as <br />public input. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked if the program could address the inadequacy of drainage in many parts of the <br />community. Mr. Lyle responded that staff included a proposal to examine those stream corridors <br />in the Capital Improvement Program with the purpose of putting together some proposals on how <br />they might be restored. In new developments, the amount and volume of flow would be <br />controlled so they had less impact. Mr. Rayor asked if that was understood by the public. Mr. <br />Lyle said that staff would conduct public outreach. He said that the DAC members had also <br />committed to communicating with their constituent groups, and he had not yet heard objections <br />to the approach. He added that the approach was not significantly different than the approaches <br />taken in other communities. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 commended the staff and DAC work on the proposal. Referring to the concept of green <br />roofs, he asked if the City had studied that approach. Mr. Lyle said that the City would support a <br />Best Management Practice (BMP) of that sort. It worked quite well in some areas. Mr. Pap8 <br />suggested that could help property owners achieve the 80-percent on-site treatment requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if the community's buildable land could be inventoried in a matrix that showed the <br />impact of implementing various regulations, such as the open waterways ordinance, the Land <br />Use Code Update, and the proposed recommendations. Mr. Lyle believed that staff could <br />produce such an analysis related to the open waterways ordinance. He was unsure that the <br />analysis could address the Land Use Code Update. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked how City staff knew $500,000 annually was the right amount without more <br />information about what would be purchased. She wanted "a lot more work done" on what was <br />needed and how much it would cost before the council considered the issue again. She was <br />skeptical the funding would be inadequate because of what she believed was a lack of <br />acquisition personnel, and reluctant to authorize a fee increase without knowing more about what <br />money was needed and how it would be spent. Mr. Lyle said that information would be included <br />in the scope of work and the follow-up evaluation. He added that no detailed analysis had gone <br />into the proposed figure, which staff would need to validate through further analysis. Responding <br />to a follow-up question from Ms. Nathanson regarding the possibility the City could use another <br />acquisition specialist, Mr. Lyle said that information about that topic would be included in the <br />scope of work. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked about proposed increased in capital expenses. Mr. Lyle estimated $2 <br />million annually over ten years. He said that as other issues or priorities arise, the annual <br />amount could change. <br />Ms. Nathanson asked if the Planning and Development Department had input about the impact of <br />the proposed maintenance approaches on land use development. Mr. Lyle said that staff had <br />examined the unintended consequences of the ordinances, but he acknowledged that there was <br />still work to do. Both an internal and external review was planned to ensure those issues were <br />worked out. Planning Director Jan Childs said that the Planning Commission had also flagged <br />the issue of unintended consequences, and staff would work to identify them. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 10, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />