Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Pryor agreed with Mr. Zelenka there was a need for a regional water master plan. <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor about Eugene's role as a controller. He also agreed about the City's <br />Growth Management Policies, suggesting that the council should not follow the policies until they were <br />updated. Mr. Poling did not think Eugene should try to dictate to other cities how they grew or expanded. <br />Those communities needed to have their own policies and plans. <br />Mr. Poling agreed with the mayor that the City had some goals that contradicted each other, and that <br />should be taken into consideration when discussing such issues. He said that the council should talk about <br />what was best for everyone involved, not just Eugene. He emphasized the limitation that Veneta's water <br />situation placed on it in regard to encouraging business development that could move Veneta beyond the <br />role of a bedroom community. <br />Mr. Poling appreciated Mr. Zelenka and Mr. Brown's honesty in labeling the contract as a growth issue. <br />He agreed that the contract was not about water, but about growth management not just in Eugene but in <br />all of Lane County. <br />Mr. Zelenka said the issue was not about Veneta or about control. He maintained the issue was about <br />adherence to Eugene's adopted policies and Oregon's land use laws. He said that if the council was not <br />going to adhere to its adopted policies, it should change them or take them off the wall. Mr. Zelenka <br />recalled that he had requested information from staff regarding which of the policies had been codified but <br />had not received that information. <br />Mr. Zelenka reiterated that his focus was on Eugene, not on controlling Veneta. Mr. Zelenka averred he <br />was not a "no- growther," but rather in favor of "smart" or planned growth. He believed the City's policies <br />and Oregon's land use laws were in place for a reason. If Eugene was not going to adhere to them, they <br />should try to change them or identify an exception to them. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked City staff for a consistency analysis of the Growth Management Policies and a regional <br />water approach, citing interest in particular in policies 1, 2, 5, and 10, as well as a consistency analysis of <br />a regional water approach with Statewide Goals 2, 11, and 14. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if EWEB had a plan to perfect the first 25 percent of the next water right, and if it was <br />going to produce a regional master water plan. Ms. Smith indicated she would provide answers to the <br />council in writing after consultation with other EWEB staff. She said the answer to Mr. Zelenka's first <br />question was related to the answer to his second question. If EWEB had a back -up supply commitment <br />from other larger neighboring utilities, that commitment counted toward its ability to reserve the next 25 <br />percent and subsequent 25 percent allocations. <br />Mr. Taylor recalled that there was a regional master water plan done by the Lane Council of Governments <br />in 1978. That was supplanted by the Eugene - Springfield Metropolitan General Area Plan, and the broader <br />master plan vision was shelved. He did not recommend that EWEB produce a master plan on its own, and <br />advocated for an iterative process that allowed the communities to align their plans into a larger regional <br />strategy or view. EWEB could lead such an effort, but he hoped for a much more collaborative approach. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed that a regional plan needed to involve the regional players. <br />Mayor Piercy said the Growth Management Policies were City policy until a council majority changed <br />them. Speaking to Mr. Zelenka's comments about seeking information about whether the Growth <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 10, 2010 Page 6 <br />Work Session <br />