CCMinutes - 03/10/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman referred to Policy 13 on page II-C-5 of the Metro Plan. She asked staff to discuss how the policy impacted the issue of Springfield's interest in joining a fire service district. Mr. Yeiter said the policy was not amended in response to that situation. Ms. Heinkel said the policy was reworded to make it clear how it had been interpreted in the past. Ms. Bettman referred to testimony submitted by 1,000 Friends of Oregon suggesting the Goal 3 amendments were inconsistent with State law. Several of the staff responses in the council packet stated that the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) authorized the local approach, which made it consistent with State law. She asked if LCDC approval made the policies legal, and if legal counsel had reviewed the text in question. She asked if staff had distinguished between policies with LCDC approval and those without that approval. Mr. Bj6rklund said because the forest rules referred to applied only outside the urban growth boundary (UGB), in both cases staff had relied on Lane County staff documentation and interpretation. Mr. Yeiter said some legal review had occurred, but he could not say if the City's legal counsel had reviewed the text in question. Ms. Taylor said that the council should not take action at this time. She thought the amendments repre- sented far more than housekeeping. The testimony indicated the public had many questions about the amendments. She had several amendments to offer to the main motion. She wanted staff comment about what she believed to be well-informed and valid objections that people had voiced to the amendments. She said the council should listen to the experts in the community. Mr. Papd said he had wanted to see amendments that would have allowed Eugene to facilitate the actions that Springfield wanted to take with regard to fire districts. He was not prepared to act until he saw amendments related to that issue. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papd, moved to acknowledge it is the City Council's position to keep Policy J-1 in the Metro Plan, and that this intent be conveyed to the other jurisdictions. Mr. Kelly said the policy called for an energy management plan to be developed, and the draft before the council deleted the policy. He thought that energy was a critical resource that was needed in the community. Given the volatility of the energy situation, he wanted to work on proactive planning. He acknowledged such a plan would require funding, but preferred to retain the policy and seek the needed funding. Mr. Meisner asked if the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) or the other utility providers were subject to the Metro Plan, and if they participated in its adoption. He questioned if the effect of the motion was to direct those providers to develop such a plan. Mr. Yeiter confirmed that EWEB and the Springfield Utility Board abided by Metro Plan policies. Mr. Meisner asked if EWEB had the opportunity to comment on or react to the motion. Mr. Yeiter said no. Mr. Meisner wanted to consult the providers. Ms. Heinkel said the recommendation that the policy be deleted was considered by staff to be a housekeep- ing measure. She did not think the other jurisdictions would object to its continued inclusion, and the project could be prioritized for implementation. Mr. Meisner wanted a memorandum from EWEB in regard to the motion. Ms. Bettman also wanted to retain the policy. She thought it should be a community goal. It was a responsible policy, and the community needed to look at its energy needs in a comprehensive way. She said MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 3 Work Session