CCMinutes - 03/10/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

planning. For the last several years, the work was dictated by the State mandate for periodic review. From here on, it would be driven by local needs. She said that the items needed to be balanced and prioritized. Mr. Kelly asked who did the balancing and prioritization, and who adopted the program. Ms. Heinkel said that the work on the program would begin with the planning directors, and she assumed the council would have input into the process. Ms. Muir said the discussion had not occurred yet, and she was not aware of the process involved. Mr. Kelly asked that staff return to the council and consult it or update it, whatever was appropriate. Ms. Taylor noted that she had prepared three amendments to the work program. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to revise Metro Plan Section III-C, Policy C 25 to read as follows: %pringfield, Lane County, and Eugene shall consider downstream impacts on water quality when planning for urbanization, flood control, urban runoff, and recreational needs in near proximity to the Willamette and McKenzie rivers." Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of water quality and the need to address the impacts of activities proximate to the river. Ms. Solomon pointed out the motion as stated by Ms. Taylor had the result of limiting the policy to impacts on water quality only, and the issue of water quality was already addressed in the existing policy. Staff recommended no change to the policy. She did not support the motion. Ms. Bettman asked what other impacts were considered at this time. Mr. Bj6rklund said the existing, more broadly stated policy addressed biological habitat, any kinds of impact to the downstream system. If the intent was to highlight water quality, the text proposed in the motion was not what was wanted. Ms. Bettman suggested the motion be revised to read ~water quality and other impacts." Mr. Bj6rklund agreed that would highlight the issue and not limit the text. Ms. Taylor accepted the revision as a friendly amendment. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the revision suggested by Ms. Bettman. He asked Mr. Bj6rklund to comment on the meaning of the word ~along" the river as it was reflected in the existing policies. He believed that testimony suggesting the policy be changed reflected concern the policy would be interpreted to apply only to the bank of the river. Mr. Bj6rklund said that ~near proximity" was redundant and he would interpret it to main essentially the same thing as ~along." Neither term was defined anywhere and neither gave real direction to the reader. Mr. Kelly did not like either term, but thought that ~proximate" defined an area, where ~along" could ~literally be the interface." He supported the amended motion. Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman accepted the deletion of ~near" from the motion as a friendly amendment. Ms. Nathanson thought the language changes were creating additional confusion. ~Proximate" could leave out the banks of the river itself. She thought the amendment lacked clarity and did not represent an improvement to the policy. Mr. Poling agreed with the staff analysis. He thought the existing policy was adequate. Ms. Taylor thought the discussion pointed out the need for the council to take more time. She thought that MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 5 Work Session