02/14/1990 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mayor Miller asked council to focus its attention on the resolution provided by staff. Ms. Ehrman voiced support for the process pursued by BPA but said the project has not been adequately communicated. She said she felt that passage of the resolution is unnecessary in light of the validity of council's 1982 resolution, and she emphasized that council should not discourage examination of Alternative A on the basis that it affects City residents. Ms. Ehrman suggested that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) be asked to solicit involvement by interested lay people. Ms. Bascom recognized council's interest in becoming more familiar with the development and maintenance of Ridgeline Park. She suggested that, in order to preserve the quality of land, council may need to consider some realistic trade-offs. Mr. Holmer stated that he would not support the resolution because it implies that council is not open to other alternatives. He suggested that staff work with BPA and EWEB to research the controversial issues and advised council to defer taking action until a meaningful public involvement.process has been ensured. Mr. Rutan said he felt that staff and BPA presented enough new issues to warrant passage of a new resolution. The wording, he said, is general enough to allow flexibility and discussion and it indicates a willingness by BPA to cooperate. Mr. Rutan supported the resolution as presented and stressed the need for council to make a statement. Mr. Boles stated that the justification of need, as requested by Congressman Peter DeFazio, was the key issue to be addressed. Mayor Miller responded that, whether the need exists or not, the purpose of the resolution is to enable participation in BPA's long-range plans. At Mr. Green's request, Mr. Croteau explained the ways in which the 1982 resolution differs from the one proposed by staff. The latter version opposes construction at a specific location and requests that BPA maintain its present DEIS process. The earlier resolution addressed issues associated with the Eugene-Medford project. Mr. Holmer suggested that Section 1 and the resolution findings be deleted and the focus of council be placed on sections 2 and 3. Mr. Croteau pointed out that findings are included to justify passage of the resolution. Ms. Bascom said that BPA's presentation about the need to maintain reliable power linkages convinced her to support the resolution. Mr. Boles voiced concern that reliability was being given precedence over acceptable risk levels. He reiterated that it is unwise to rely on past activity to predict future power needs. Ms. Ehrman supported Mr. Holmer's proposal to pass the resolution without the findings or Section 1. She said she felt it was unnecessary to reaffirm council's position regarding the south hills area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council , February 14, 1990 Page 6