CCMinutes - 03/10/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the materials indicated the providers had met and decided not to pursue it; she maintained that action circumvented the public process. It was not the energy providers' role to make such decisions for the elected officials and the community. She thought it was the elected officials' responsibility to make such planning decisions for the providers and the community. Ms. Solomon asked what would happen if the council passed the motion and the providers did not want to do the planning involved. Ms. Heinkel said if the policy was retained, it would be up to the jurisdictions to take the lead in effort, establish a work program, and then invite the utilities to participate. She said that there was a chance the providers might to talk about such a plan now as the last time the subject had been discussed was seven years ago. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. She thought the task should be accomplished. Ms. Nathanson said energy encompassed more than electricity. The public utilities that provided electric power had elected boards and their own goals. She asked in what venue such planning could occur. Ms. Heinkel said that the utility providers, public and private, had met seven years ago in a facilitated process. There had been some interest but not enough to fund the effort at that time. She believed that it was likely LCOG would facilitate such a group to revisit the issue if a work plan was established. Ms. Nathanson suggested that policy's absence from the plan would not preclude such energy planning. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Meisner about involving the utility providers. He suggested that those providers be given notice and allowed to comment about the motion. Mr. Kelly said ideally, it would be great if the providers took the lead on the plan. He acknowledged the public providers had elected boards, but said that they generally looked to their own domain, and it was the job of the elected officials responsible for the overall well-being of the community to see such planning was done. He agreed the providers should be consulted. He suggested that the providers might be willing to fund such an effort. If LCOG was in charge of the project, he believed the providers would be willing to provide raw data and the results of their own planning efforts. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Yeiter said that Lane County Planning Director Kent Howe was present to address Ms. Bettman's earlier questions. Mr. Howe responded that the changes to the policies referred to as inconsistent by 1,000 Friends of Oregon were not inconsistent; the elected officials had added language to the existing State- adopted rules and regulations, which were reviewed and acknowledged by the LCDC. They were existing policies in place today. The policy regarding marginal lands (C-4-0) originally referenced only exclusive farm use. That was a new policy, and the provisions for marginal land would apply to exclusive farm-use zoned lands as well as marginal lands. All the policies had been reviewed by legal counsel. Ms. Bettman asked for information about the designation of the 4J school sites. She thought the City should retain the existing designations on the site because changing them was not within the scope of periodic review, in her opinion. In regard to the Westmoreland site, it was her contention that if this was passed, the appeal of the neighborhood group would be prejudiced. Mr. Kelly asked for more information about the local work program, who adopted it, and if the council could influence it. Ms. Heinkel said that LCOG maintained an annual work program for metropolitan MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 10, 2004 Page 4 Work Session