Laserfiche WebLink
ordinance as the potential impact on property owners did not appear to outweigh the benefit to overall water quality <br />for the area. <br />Mr. Zelenka stated that the waterway protection measures under discussion were part of an ongoing effort to comply <br />with the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and subsequent TMDL standards. He maintained that the <br />proposed ordinance amendments did not appear to him to be overly burdensome to property owners. He further <br />maintained that the use of conservation easements was an overly expensive strategy and an inappropriate use of <br />regulatory practices. <br />Ms. Walch, responding to a request from Mr. Poling, briefly recapped the previous council discussions regarding the <br />possible regulatory approaches to waterway protection. <br />Mr. Poling asked the City Manager where the funds to implement, monitor and enforce the ordinance provisions <br />would come from. Mr. Ruiz responded that the funds might come in the form of a bond measure or the diversion of <br />funds from another program. <br />Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted that property owners affected by the ordinance <br />amendments would have the opportunity to appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals. <br />Ms. Ortiz expressed that certain property owners affected by the ordinance would actually welcome the opportunity <br />to help improve and conserve local waterways. <br />Ms. Solomon indicated that she was not in favor of the amended ordinance and would like to have further public <br />hearings conducted regarding the matter. <br />Ms. Jerome, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, maintained that the changes to the ordinance were not <br />substantial enough to warrant further public hearings regarding them and were in fact a direct response to the <br />concerns raised at the previous public hearings. <br />Mr. Clark opined that the discussions surrounding the ordinance were not about water quality but rather who would <br />be paying for the regulatory approach dictated by the ordinance. <br />Mr. Clark asked why the waterways under discussion were not covered in staff’s previous Goal 5 work. <br />Mr. Clark commented that there were several things that the City could do to improve water quality along the <br />Willamette that would not affect property owners. <br />Mr. Ruiz noted that the cost to purchase the conservation easements as investigated by staff was not necessarily the <br />financial burden of adjacent property owners. He suspected that the cost of regulatory protections would be <br />significantly less than that. <br />Mr. Clark, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to return the <br />ordinance as proposed. <br />Mr. Poling reiterated his concern that property owners rights might be infringed upon under the ordinance, but noted <br />that he would be voting in support of Mr. Clark’s motion since property owners could still appeal the regulatory <br />provisions of the ordinance. <br />Ms. Jerome commented that all of staff’s investigative findings with regard to land supply would be kept up to date <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council January 28, 2009 Page 3 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />