12/17/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

___ _. _. _ _ __.__..__L__-__ ..--_-.---~- r \ - --.+ -.--- - - -,.-" -~ I \ Councilman Hershner noted that the proposed ordinance covering procedures under the Fasano ruling did away with public hearing at joint meetings of the Planning .,- Commission and Council when there was a difference in the decisions of the two 'bodies on an issue. He understood there was some Planning Commission resistance ,. . ,to that procedure.' However, he wondered whether in other instances where ordinances',: ; indicated joint meetings had to be public hearings the requirement for public hear- . : ing at ,that point might be done away with. He hoped staff would look into those .! : kinds of problems and review information with the Council with the idea of avoiding ,hearing the same testimony more than once. Mayor Anderson shared Mr. Hershner's \ : view and added that discussion should be confined to the Planning Commission and ; Council record only. Councilwoman Beal recognized the possibility of hearing ; evidence twice but thought there should not be a lockout of testimony presented to the Council which had not been presented to the Planning Commission. " i Councilwoman Campbell favored immediate staff exploration of possibili ty of usi~g., : hearings official in more issues now going to the Council. She didn't feel Comm telected officials were suited to sit in a quasi~judicial position. Councilman 1.1/28/73 ~l1urray for clarification asked wi th regard to use of hearings official whether ! File ~the only way an issue would then go to the Council would be if an error were : found in findings of the official. Manager answered that it might, but an issue I \ . Imight also go ,to the Council to decide whether to hear an appeal. "'-~ . _. LA ~- ...---"-. .....~ -+ , '- .----.---. ~. .- "- - _ _' _ ..- L ,4 -.-~.- kr_" Q. Charter Amendments - Freeways, Alley Assessments - Councilrrian Hershner asked the =- status of the Charter amendment on freeways under discussion about a year ago :at which time he understood City Attorney was to negotiate with proponents to clear, IUP problems. Public Works Director answered that a new planning division has been 'formed in the Public Works Department and compliance with the amendment as written lis intended at this time. Until environmental impact statements are ready there !is nothing more can be done. Mr. Hershner's understanding was that the amendment :was to be reviewed from a broader standpoint to make it more workable. He wondered lif a report could be brought to the Council in that regard. It was understood it ,would be prepared. I . Mayor Anderson suggested start of discussion now on any suggestions or ideas for , Comm : possible major legislation needing voter attention in view of primary and general Ll/28/73 I ,elections to be held in 1974, thereby avoiding holding special elections. File Councilwoman Beal mentioned change in alley assessment procedure. Manager said : that based on the last draft of the proposed amendment from the Attorney's office ,it would be appropriate now for the subcommittee to meet. The meeting was scheduled. l for noon, December 10. - \ .. ... R.'State Law re: Water and Sewer SysttW-Creations and ExE'ensTons - councii -was previ'busly -, furnished wi th copies of memo discussing recent changes in State law with regard to --..... creation and extension of water and sewer systems which come under the authority of I the Boundary Commission if outside city limits. Gary Chenkin, assistant planning 'director, has been appointed as the City's representative on a joint committee made : up of representatives frc:m Eugene and Springfield, Lane County, LeOG, and EWEB. . iThis committee will provide a unified policy on water and sewer extensions, thereby : giving the Boundary Commission staff ~ measure upon which to base recommendations. , The comrndttee will also at~empt to state fairly specific urban service boundaries to enablest.a.f:f evaluation of extension requests insofar as they would be affected by"'-;" ;......... the urban service boundary designated in the 1990 Plan. Councilman Murray said it came to his attention that the Boundary Commission in July 1972 established a policy statement that they would not approve expansion of any city in Lane County until furnished with a plan certifying an urban boundary : for annexation priorities. Submission of the plan was requested by January 1973. He asked whether such a plan had been forwarded by the city of Eugene and what it was. Manager replied that no plan was forwarded. The Boundary Commission staff recognized that what they were asking was unrealistic in terms of refinement of the 1990 Plan. Until refinement planning was developed and boundary locations specifically determined, as now in progress in the south part of the City, there appears no way to decide the sphere of influence. The memo distributed served as a catalyst to start the planning process, and in the meantime the Boundary Commission is considering annexations on, ~~ individual bases. :,) Planning Director said there are criteria used in recommending annexations based On the boundary concept in the 1990 Plan and on full/range of urban services. However, it is felt knowledge gained in determining boundaries in the South Hills area will Comm [be useful in determining how to approach other areas. There has been no policy 11/28/73 ;statement as to sphere of influence, he continued, and although there was discussion~ File at one time of definite city boundaries" ~thing developed. Discussion on the" '..,.', ' Iregional sewer issue, he said, will have some impact on how urban development will :occur in fringe areas. ~'S 12/17/73 - 10