Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Envision Eugene proposals, they could become interested parties and appeal the Envision Eugene proposals to the <br />Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) or other State of Oregon agencies. <br /> <br />Ms. Ortiz had worked hard to improve intergovernmental relationships and did not want the City to be viewed as <br />trying to tell other communities what they could do. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka supported Mr. Ruiz’s recommendation. While it was clear to him that provision of water outside the <br />urban growth boundary (UGB) required council approval, the issue would be decided by the court. <br /> <br />In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Ms. Wilson said the City of Veneta had received a funding package <br />consisting of $2.6 million in grants and $13 million in loans. The City of Veneta had to advise the U.S. Department <br />of Agriculture Rural Development of its decision by July 13, 2010. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka did not see the proposal before the council as the City of Eugene trying to tell the City of Veneta what <br />do to within its UGB. The question was whether the action taken by the City of Eugene would be based on the <br />principles of how it would make decisions, including the Growth Management Policies (GMP). He believed the sale <br />of water to the City of Veneta violated GMP 1, 2, 5 and 10 and other sustainability issues related to sprawl versus <br />compact urban growth. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor supported Mr. Ruiz’s proposal. She thought the City of Eugene had the right to decide and it would be <br />wrong to take the action of selling water without extremely convincing arguments to support such a decision. <br /> <br />Ms. Piercy asked what role the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would have over a water line going to Veneta <br />if it was determined that EWEB had the authority. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein said it would depend on whether there were Eugene/Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro <br />Plan) or Lane County Rural Comprehensive Plan (Rural Comp Plan) changes or Lane County permits the City of <br />Veneta would be required to acquire. He did not know what land use issues would apply to building the pipeline. If <br />the Lane County permitting process was an administrative one, it was unlikely that the BCC would be involved in a <br />decision related to the water line. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor said the reason to sell or not sell water to the City of Veneta was related to intent, which would be an <br />important discussion to have. However, as a Eugene City Councilor, his role was to assess and protect the interests <br />of the City of Eugene and not Lane County. If the sale of water represented a risk to the City of Eugene, that would <br />be a legitimate reason not to sell the water. If the reason was that the City of Eugene did not want the City of Veneta <br />to grow or take other action, he did not have the authority to control what action another community took. He noted <br />local control had been an important issue for the City of Eugene before the state legislature and every city was <br />entitled to local control. It would be important for the City of Eugene to carefully and thoughtfully consider why it <br />would or would not sell water to the City of Veneta. <br /> <br />Mr. Brown asked if other parties involved in the question of selling water to the City of Veneta would pull back. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein asked Jan Wilson, attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, representing the interveners, to <br />comment on Mr. Brown’s question. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 28, 2010 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />