Laserfiche WebLink
their discussions listed in the agenda item summary. She summarized that, due to the extensive and unusual nature of <br />the amount of conservation easements that were being discussed, both agencies were recommending against the use of <br />the conservation easement mechanism. <br />Ms. Walch directed the council to the proposed amended ordinance materials that had been previously distributed <br />regarding the protection of waterways. <br />Ms. Walch and City Attorney Emily Jerome, responding to a request from Mr. Zelenka, briefly described the <br />revisions to the ordinance for the benefit of the council. <br />Mr. Clark declared that the company he owned occasionally did business with California Oregon Broadcasting, Inc. <br />(COBI), a company that had provided testimony which had led to the revision of section 9.4780(h) of the ordinance <br />in question. Mr. Clark added that he did not perceive any real conflict of interest and that he wanted to make the <br />declaration in the interest of transparency. He further maintained that he did not feel it necessary to make any <br />exceptions to the ordinance for COBI simply because they had had their attorney provide testimony during the public <br />comment portion of an earlier council meeting. <br />Mr. Clark expressed that he would prefer to direct the City Manager to take no further action on the matter primarily <br />because the waterway protection measures as demonstrated by Ms. Walch prevented further deterioration but did not <br />actually improve local water quality. He added that it did not seem reasonable to transfer the burden for protection <br />of local waterways onto the 547 property owners who would be obligated under a conservation easement mechanism. <br />Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that under the Federal Clean Water Act, the City was <br />legally required to address any violation of total maximum daily load (TMDL) standards. Ms. Taylor felt that while <br />the City’s investigation into the use of conservation easements and amended regulatory protections constituted <br />compliance within the eyes of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), such actions were simply not <br />enough to adequately address waterway protection issues. <br />Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, noted that it would be prohibitively difficult to employ <br />conservation easements on a case-by-case basis and that to combine regulatory protections with individual easements <br />among the 547 property owners would be an extremely expensive strategy. <br />Ms. Taylor responded that the cost issue was irrelevant in light of the City’s expenditures toward the creation of a <br />new City Hall facility. She stated that clean water was more important than a new City Hall facility. <br />Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, clarified the designations of the waterways being addressed <br />by the ordinance amendments. <br />Ms. Walch, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, briefly described the waterway protection measures that had <br />been undertaken by the City of Springfield. <br />Mr. Brown commented that it would be advisable for the City of Eugene to coordinate its water protection efforts <br />with those of Springfield and Lane County. <br />Ms. Walch noted that the proposed conservation easements would only be applicable within the limits of the City of <br />Eugene. <br />Mr. Pryor was concerned that the ordinance as presented did not strike an acceptable balance between a significant <br />level of waterway protection and the rights of property owners. He noted that he was inclined to support the revised <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />