Laserfiche WebLink
<br />nothing magical about the 14 day time line or the Planning Commission. If the council preferred another <br />time line, it could be accommodated in the ordinance. Ms. Muir said that one reason to involve the <br />Planning Commission was agenda management if many such claims were received. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor averred that time after time, the council was told the Planning Commission had an over-full <br />agenda. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon continued to have questions as well as reservations about the proposal, but agreed with Mr. <br />Kelly that the council was merely directing staff to return with an ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly suggested that the council was confused as to the difference between the existing and proposed <br />process. He said it would be helpful if the council received a table comparing the two ordinances in <br />regard to the timelines and approval processes. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly pointed out that, with regard to the Planning Commission coming between the council and <br />public, the manager did the same in the existing process. He underscored the effort the council made to <br />improve the existing Ballot Measure 37 ordinance and said he would be examining the new ordinance <br />carefully. He also suggested that staff produce a side-by-side comparison of the administrative rules for <br />the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman was not confused as to the difference between the two processes, but did not see any benefit <br />to changing the existing process; in fact, she saw downsides to changing the process. Speaking to <br />comments that the council was merely directing staff to return with a revised process, Ms. Bettman <br />pointed out the motion directed staff to do some very expensive resource-intensive work. She said that if <br />councilors did not intend to support the ultimate outcome, they should vote against the motion. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting no. <br /> <br />c. WORK SESSION: Stormwater Permit and Program Developments <br /> <br />City Manager Taylor reported that staff would highlight stormwater permit and program developments for <br />the council. He recalled that the last comprehensive review of the Stormwater Program occurred in 2003, <br />when staff raised some budget and fee issues facing the program. He said staff would discuss some of the <br />developments in the existing service as well as in the permit renewal project and seek guidance as it <br />prepared the fiscal year (FY) 2007 budget. <br /> <br />The council was also joined by Peter Ruffier and Therese Walch of the Public Works Department. Ms. <br />Walch provided a PowerPoint presentation, entitled Stormwater Permit and Program Developments. The <br />presentation highlighted the impacts from the new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System <br />(NPDES) permit issued in March 2004, developments in the program that had future impacts, and options <br />and recommendations for the future. <br /> <br />Ms. Walch briefly noted the regulatory and policy basis for the City's stormwater program. She recalled <br />the council's 2003 program review, impelled by a projected budget shortfall, and reminded the council <br />that at that time it had reduced the program budget by $1.8 million to bring it line with revenues. The <br />reduced program met the 1994 NPDES program conditions but there were uncertainties about whether it <br /> <br />MINUTES-Eugene City Council <br />Work Session <br /> <br />October 10, 2005 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />