07/24/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Campbell asked for a recent example of lengthy discussion before the Council on assessments. Public Works Director said the heart of the problem is in award of contracts. He said the Department hears a great many of the complaints on assessments which are settled at that level. He suggested staff hearing on bid . awards would more aptly serve to cut time of Council hearings. Mr. Hershner com- mented on other types of appeals, such as height of fences, taking Council time which would be served by the hearing panel. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. It was understood a resolution would be drafted for Council consideration. I Comm Mrs. Beal said she had no intention of miniInizing the subcommittee work or report, 7/19/72 but was trying for clarification of the hearing process. Af'prove D. Metro Planning Advisory Committee, 1990 General Plan - Copies of proposed framework of advisory comndttee for on-going administration of the 1990 General Plan and Planning Commission recommendations for JTr:)difications were previously distributed to Council members. Fi ve voting members are to be selected each by Lane County, , Eugene, and Springfield; two voting members by each of the three planning com- missions, with the recommendation that each of the agencies co-ordinate their initial appointments to achieve broad representation of the metropolitan area. Appointments, except the planning commissions' members, will be ratified by LCOG and will be for three-year tenns. Planning Directors of the three agencies and LCOG will be ex officio, the LCOG Planning Director to act as secretary. Bylaws, procedures, and staffing were set out in the framework. Modifications recommended - were ,that reappointments and vacancies will follow the procedure for initial ap- pointment, wi th Planning Commissions retaining the option to deci de whet.her to appoint: one or two members, and LCOG to ratify only those people already selected by each jurisdiction. In answer to Mrs. Campbell, it was brought out that no elected offi ci a1s will be appointed to the committee, and the appointments will be made by the Eugene and Springfield councils, and the Lane County Commission. Mr. Bradshaw moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 to accept the framework for the Advisory Committee with the changes recommended by the Planning Comndssion. , 'Manager suggested that if the Planning Conmrission elects to be represented by i i only one of its members, a procedure should be worked out to provide two votes I Ifor the one member or that another person replace the second member to assure the j i two votes, since Eugene is enti tled to seven votes on the advisory commi ttee. Comm : Answering Mrs. Campbell, he said there is no deadline for the appointments. 7/19/72 I Approve Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion ca_z:ried unanJ,mous1y., -,.- --._- ---- - -~--" ~ -, ------.---- . E. Skyline Loop Annexation - Planning Commission June 26, 1972 reco11U1lended annexation of this area, located between old Dillard Road and East 43rd Avenue east of East Amazon Dri ve, under heal th hazard proceedings. Roy Burns of the County Health and ,Bani tation Department reviewed history of the area and experience wi th failing I 'septic tanks and polluted water supply. Previous annexation by the Boundary Com- mission was forestalled through appeal and subsequent defeat in an election by residents of the area. Mr. Burns said the referral to the City for annexation under the heal th hazard law is based on inadequate potable water supply, deficiencies within the Skyline water system itself, inadequate sewer service, and inadequate drainage from the area~ He said if the annexation is approved, the Skyline Loop I Wat:e.r system will be removed and replaced by service from EWEB. _ '. _ . H ". .",._..~. ., '". . .. .. --------- ---, In answer to Mrs. Campbell, it was determined the area is within the 1990 urban service boundary and there are about 90 acres involved. I ;Question arose regarding public hearing and notification to those people in the ; area. Manager explained procedure in this type of annexation, saying the request I :is forwarded to the State Board of Health rather than to the Boundary Commission : for public hearing. Discussion followed on whether to hold a public hearing be- l : fore the Council with the idea that it could provide an opportunity for residents I I i of the area to come forth with a sanitation plan on their own. Mr. Bradshaw \ . (wondered what would happen if some technicality prevents annexation through this . , procedure. Manager answered that the Boundary Commission may then have authority to annex, or the County Sanitation Department might have people moved out of the ; area. , l Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mrs. Bea1 that the item be placed on the consent Comm calendar for preparation of a resolution forwarding the request for annexation of 7/19/72 ~thfE!_2~Y:Line L90p _a~2"~t'2_~he~tii.!=e _BC?C1.rd of Health.~ Motion, c!!rri,ed unanimously. Approve Old. 0 7 /?A /..,~ ~