11/05/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

___ ._ ... ___.. Comm P. Recomm~nda. ti on -re : !,c:~r?!r7!ur:aI?~west~~orr"riicewel,rE:X-tert:rir::m:[J3J:ke'COIIlIU71:0.-.26...73), - _ IO /31/7 3 Q. Leaf P~ckup - Counc~lman McDOnald ~nqu~redabout the Ci ty" s policy on leaf pickup. \ File Public Works Director explained the program, saying the City does pick up leaves primarily to keep gutters free to allow proper drainage. The pickup is on im-, . . proved streets only and will continue to about January 1. It is not on a 1)1ock- . Co.mm to-block basis, ratller the City is divided into sections with areas having a high 10/24/073 concentration of foliage cleared first. F~le j'Jt was understood that publicity will be given the program so that the general ~: ,pUblic will be aware of its operation. Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, l~sugge.sted the press releases advise placing the leaves far enough from the curbs .; i;o ~110w drainage wi thout carrl/inq debris into ca tchbasins _ . R; Laure1wood Facilities - Councilman Wood asked if there will be consideration of i allowing keg beer, later hours, etc., at the Laurelwood gOlf course. Parks Di- rector said an opinion has.been received from the City Attorney and recommenda- COLW tions will be brought to the Council soon. 10/24/73 .... _ _...__. .' _H _" P'i1e ,.. I SIOSPIRG Request for Rehearing Valley River Center Rezoning (Montgomery Ward) -. Council "members were previouslg furnished with copies of letter from Oregon Student PUblic I~kv~~f Research Group requesting rehearing of the Valley River Center request to rezone to . C-2 PD an area west of the Center to permit Montgomery Ward outlet at ,that location COn?m :(Ordinance l6923 - October 8, 1973). Major issues raised bg OSPIRG were whether the10/24/7 rezoning decision was compatible with the City's goals and. Objectives as set forth Fil in the 1990 General Plan, and whether failure bg the Environmental Quality Commission to approve expanded parking to accommodate the proposed development would merit re- . cons.~~eration of Council acti~~. . . . _ . ,. . . I I Manager said recent news releases indicate the EQC has approved the proposed park- ing, leaving the question of whether the proof of necessity under the Fasano decision was adequate. City Attorney has reported that it would be necessary, if the Council 4It. decides to revise its decision, to go through the process of rezoning the property ~ . again; i.e., public hearings before the Planning Commission, recommendation to the ! Council, and adoption of a new ordinance Changing the present C-2 PD zone. Bob Stacey, law student at the University of Oregon representing OSPIRG, said it was their desire to speak only to the question of adequacy and desirability of the decision under the Fasano ruling, not the question of the rezoning process. Their concern is primarily that the 1990 Plan calls for preservation of the downtown as the commercial heart of the City and the feeling that there was not complete com- pliance with the Fasano decision on findings of fact. They are convinced that the City would not be able to carry the burden of proof in a court test of the decision. Specifically, they felt there was not sufficient proof shown that the rezoning and expansion of Valley River Center was necessary nor that maintaining Ward's in the urban area was a public need. They feel that Ward'~relocating in Valley River area was an expression of private interest which under the Fasano decision was the type of criteria to be avoided. The contention that the rezoning would prevent "scatteriza- :tion" was questionable because Ward's moving to the Goodpasture Island area did scatter enterprise from the heart of the downtown. Neither did Ward's demonstrate that the Valley River site was the only available location, they said. In answer to Councilwoman. Bea1 with regard to the EQC hearing, Mr. Stacey saia- .) , there were apparently only four votes on the Commission at this time - one member . has resigned and has not been replaced, and one who voted against the parking facili ty was not pres~t. He said OSPIRG is looking into the question now of whether to peti- tion for rehearing of that decision. Councilman McIXmald noted that the OSPIRG request for rehearing seated that regard- less of the EQC decision on the parking facility they would pursue a rehearing on the rezoning decision. Therefore, the question of whether it would be reconsidered was the issue at this time. Councilman Williams said in view of the City Attorney's advice that a rehearing was not appropriate and the fact that the Cou1Jci1 was dealing in a judicial type format, it would seem more appropriate to seek-action at a higher level, or initiate rezoning through the Planning Commission. Mr. Stacey replied that he could.not answer with regard to the legal question involved, but did feel that OSPIRG could present a case which the Council should hear. He said there was precedent for rehearing in a judi- cial type format as part of a normal procedure when there is new evidence or sub- stantial error has been found. It was his understanding that the Eugene Renewal Agency after the hearings were concluded expressed a desire to present evidence. He suggested following an abbreviated rezoning procedure if that was the only way of gaining reconsideration of the matter. Don Hulburt, information officer for ERA, . said there was information forwarded to the Council at the direction of the ERA. Heer, emphasized that lie was not speaking for the ERA, nor indicating the form of Council - consideration of that information. He didn't know whether the ERA information re- .; 1ated to the question at hand but offered to relay any message back to the Agency. 11(5(73' ~ 12 339