Laserfiche WebLink
Ruth Obadal of FEMS showed the council a map that indicated the areas in Eugene not receiving <br />a four-minute emergency response. <br /> <br />Ms. Jerome said that the criterion would likely be addressed in the review process through a <br />referral to FEMS staff, who would determine whether a proposed development could be served <br />within four minutes. She said that it was very important that the map was accurate and denials <br />be based on precise information. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs clarified that the motion only applied to the needed housing track, which included <br />clear and objective standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly underscored Ms. Childs's comments, pointing out that needed housing was a <br />discretionary path that a developer need not follow. He felt it made sense that the clear and <br />objective standard for emergency services response should be the City's clear and objective <br />goal. Mr. Kelly said that if it were the only development option available he would not be <br />comfortable with the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Childs stated that it was fair to say that approving the motion would remove all the areas <br />marked in white on the map from being eligible for the needed housing path. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner believed the motion was about both housing and fire service. He questioned <br />whether the City had done as good a job as possible of matching the extension of urban services <br />with where development occurred. He said if the standard was four minutes it made sense to <br />adjust the criterion. Mr. Meisner wanted the phrase "the orderly provision of urban services," as <br />used in local planning documents, to mean something. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ was concerned about taking the areas not receiving a four-minute response time from <br />eligibility for the needed housing path, pointing out that there were already housing in those areas <br />and the motion would establish two development paths, which created an issue of fairness for <br />him. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that she considered the motion a step toward "putting the buildings where we <br />have the services," which made sense to her. She said the City should continue to strive for a <br />four-minute response time in all areas. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that all the issues discussed by the council were probably in the mind of the <br />person who drafted the needed housing criteria. She did not understand why the criterion <br />included a five-minute response time when the City had a four-minute response standard. She <br />had considered the issue from a medical point of view, and what type of response was needed to <br />prevent brain death. <br /> <br />Ms. Obadal noted that the five-minute response time was the standard used in the department's <br />bench marking. She said that the standard was based on a variety of components and included <br />the time it took from dispatch to arrival, which accounted for the one-minute difference. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson was somewhat supportive of the motion. She suggested to Ms. Bettman that the <br />five-minute response time was likely based in part on the department's bench marking standard <br />and on the understanding that there were areas of the city that could not be reached in four <br />minutes. She believed that the motion could preclude infill opportunities in certain areas, but <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 16, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />