10/08/1990 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e limitations for property owners. As a compromise, the controlling fire protection authority was designated as the appropriate regulating agency for determining what disposal method should be used. Answering a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Lowe said that Option A was unanimously recommended by the Eugene Planning Commission. City staff supported that recommendation. The Lane County Planning Commission forwarded the ordinance to the Board of Commissioners with no recommendation on Options A and B. Mr. Holmer asked about the property owners' right to judicial review if the Hearings Official denies a permit. City Attorney Bill Gary clarified that while the Hearings Official's decision is final as far as the City is concerned, there is always the opportunity for judicial review. In this case, it would be either through the writ of review process or by a direct appeal to the Circuit Court. Answering Ms. Ehrman's further questions, Mr. Gary explained that it is not unusual for an ordinance to prescribe the scope of review and specify that the decision is the final one by the particular governing body. Further review of that decision would be limited to review for an error of law and there would be no review of factual decisions or the exercise of discretion. Mayor Miller asked about the process for the ordinance being approved by the County. Mr. Gleason clarified that if the Lane County Board of Commissioners drafts an ordinance the council determines to be unenforceable, the council could direct the manager not to sign the accompanying intergovernmental e agreement. If the County adopts or modifies the ordinance in concurrence with the council, the City would sign an intergovernmental agreement for enforcement. Ms. Ehrman said that the December 1 deadline had required quick work on this issue, and she supported recommending adoption of the ordinance with Option A. She expressed optimism that the concerns of developers and builders could be addressed later in a process similar to that used with the solar access ordinance. Mr. Holmer supported including Option A as part of the council's recommenda- tion for adoption of the ordinance. Mayor Miller directed questions to Lane County Commissioner Jack Roberts who was in the audience. Mr. Roberts said he hoped to see the City and County work together to craft an ordinance that reflects public input. He expressed concern about creating obstacles to development. Because the needs within the UGB differ from those within the city, he said that the December 1 deadline may not be realistic for resolving this complex issue. While he said he could not speak for the other commissioners, Mr. Roberts supported adoption of some type of ordinance to regulate tree-cutting in the UGB. Mr. Bennett indicated that with more time, it might be possible to develop a broader base of support for an ordinance. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 8, 1990 Page 5