Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pap~ questioned how staff determined where the community's limited resources were best <br />spent. Mr. Lyle said that the basin planning effort examined the best set of strategies to manage <br />water quality, natural resource protection, and flood protection. The DAC looked at restoration <br />opportunities and other protection measures. Those elements are embedded in the basin plans <br />and Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Pap~ said that if the City was looking at overall stream <br />quality, it needed to pull all its efforts together, not just basin planning. Mr. Lyle said that there <br />are a number of studies underway and it would be ideal to have all the answers because it would <br />make the effort easier and more complete, but he believed the council's sentiment was to <br />proceed at this time because of the pace of development and concern over the loss of natural <br />resources that might occur prior to completion of those other studies. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that Patrick Conden had indicated in his presentations in Eugene that green <br />infrastructure was cheaper to maintain, and asked staff to do more research in that area. Mr. <br />Lyle recollected that the capital expenditure was potentially less expensive, but did not recall if <br />operating costs were similarly reduced. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly believed the acquisition of stream corridors was a time-sensitive issue in some <br />situations. He suggested that the City could acquire streams and development could proceed <br />around those acquisitions. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly expressed concern about the cost and the time line for the work plan. He said that the <br />cost was $250,000 before the City purchased any property, which was something not scheduled <br />to occur until spring 2002. Mr. Kelly wanted a less expensive option to compare the proposal to, <br />although he did not want to delay the process. Mr. Kelly said it was the type of task he would <br />assign one professional FTE to complete in one year, which was a far lower cost. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Kelly's remarks regarding the time line and cost. Requesting brief <br />answers with no further explanation, Mr. Meisner asked what type of maintenance and public <br />access the City intended to provide to the lands once acquired. Mr. Lyle said that staff had not <br />yet defined the type of access that would occur and maintenance varies by the character of the <br />stream. Mr. Meisner was concerned that there was no information about access identified in the <br />work plan. He understood that there were many purposes to acquisitions, but said what the City <br />acquired and what it did with the land was of incredible importance. The issue of access made a <br />difference to him. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed concern that there had been no outreach as an initial step in the work <br />plan to ask the public if it wanted the City to undertake such a program. He said that there was <br />no opportunity for public comment at all, and called for a conversation with the public. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner was uncomfortable with the timing of the proposed examination of the buildable <br />lands inventory, considering it too late in the process. He wanted to know the zoning of the land <br />that the City was looking at and how much would be lost from the inventory, creating pressure to <br />expand the urban growth boundary. <br />Mr. Fart agreed with Mr. Meisner. He said that the City was building pressure to expand the <br />urban growth boundary. He determined from Mr. Lyle that information on the impacts on the <br />boundary and buildable land inventory would be produced in Phase 1. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Lyle confirmed the cost per square foot for <br />impervious surface for commercial and industrial users if there was a user fee increase that <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2000 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />