|
<br /> 'Councilwoman CamPbell asked how amendments to the 1990 Plan~o~ld be initiated _
<br /> wheth~r they shouldcome.from the governing body or MAPAC itself. Manager replied
<br /> i th~t ~t was not ,necessar~ly a "cut and 'dried" process. He noted a couple of
<br /> I th~ngs the Comm~tte~ w~s requested to look at, one being whether Lane Community
<br /> ;College should be w~th~n the urban service boundary. The Committee decided it
<br /> should not, so n~ change wa~ initiated. Planning Director added that anyone
<br /> . of the three bod~es - Counc~l, Planning Commission, or MAPAC - could initiate
<br /> :amendments. ,However, only the Council could actually autho;ize amendment to the
<br /> ,Plan. counc~lma~ Wood thought many of the changes which MAPAC was looking at
<br /> ',wol.lld be automat~c. u___"___
<br /> . '."'" ... ..... ~._....--._-~--...
<br /> . . _ . ~. _ "'." .
<br /> :Councilwoman Campbell stated her impression that.the South Hills study wou]a~
<br /> ;result in a change in the urban service boundary. Planning Direptor sr3id MAPAC
<br /> [precisely declined to consider any change in the boundaries already established.
<br /> iHe added that the forthcoming Goals update statement might activate the Com-
<br /> imittee sirtce it included a recqmmendation that the governing body initiate a
<br /> :study on costs and problems of 'growth and how that miqht be considered in light
<br /> ~ of keep~nJ.~,!!"!.-~c:,lJ~~_economy in this area.
<br /> --. .- -- -. ... .. --- . ...u .---
<br /> -., - ..
<br /> ,Councilwoman Beal was in favor of the changes suggested but wanted to h
<br /> , d . , . . ear some ,
<br /> i ~scuss~o~ w~th regard ~o implications. Planning Director said the most signifi- i
<br /> cant port~on o~ the rev~ew was that it did not recommend inclusion of LCC within i
<br /> ,the urb~n serv~ce boundary at this time. The ,changes recommended were mostly ,
<br /> grci1!JI!la,!:~,c:... ____ _____ '._--_ ,___u___ __" - --__. _.,____ ______.__. ._h ' i
<br /> :Galen Howard, LCOG staff member assigned to work with MAPAC, explained the -----------
<br /> Ichanges recommended and said the Committee felt they were not of sufficient .
<br /> I -
<br /> ;significance to complete the Plan amendment process. He too said the Committee ,;
<br /> e ldid not recommend changing the urban service boundary to include LCC (that re-
<br /> Iview having been requested by Lane County Planning) so no amendment procedure
<br /> !was necessary in that instance. He said the Committee would probably appreciate
<br /> ~some outline of what the Council would like to see happen, perhaps giving priority j
<br /> iJ'an.:!cin.:~_czn__ the issues it would like to see studied in the 1975 annual review. ;
<br /> Councilwomr3n Beal referred to the suggestion on page 5 of the Annual Review
<br /> that criteria should include consideration of actual cost of urban services. She
<br /> 'felt it very important to have that type of information if the Plan was being
<br /> :~mended and would apply to future annexations. Planning Director explained
<br /> ithat the items referred to were for clarification of that section and that those
<br /> :issues were being looked at now. Manager commented on the desirability of having
<br /> :that type of information, but felt regardless of whether it was written into the
<br /> ,Plan, the Council had the right to request what information and take whatever
<br /> iaction wanted based on the information requested. In specific instances of
<br /> (annexation, he said, the Council could request a complete analysis of cost of
<br /> ,fservices regard'less of whether the Plan made that provision. But evidently j_
<br /> 'MAPAC thought going through the amendment process with the three governing bodies "
<br /> :was hot justified just to give Eugene authority it already had to request that
<br /> L info:r;mq, t;,iOJ2! ,... ,u._._'_'" ..-...... _.._~ . _.~. - . .
<br /> . -.--. '.'-". .... - ",>-.~.' - -----. -",-,"'."
<br /> ,Mrs. Beal referred to her repeated requests for analysis of cost of extension
<br /> - :of city services to all undeveloped areas and an analysis of capital costs. She
<br /> 'said this MAPAC suggestion seemed to take care of that request but since it was
<br /> not being formally adopted she wondered if it ,would be only some "future" policy
<br /> so that this might be the time again to bring up the-cost question. Councilman I
<br /> Williams said there was a very strong statement in the Community Goals document
<br /> dealing with the overall question of growth and that a study with necessary fund- i
<br /> ,
<br /> ing was called for in that statement. Mayor Anderson added that it would also
<br /> be a consideration on an area-wide basis rather than just for Eugene. Mrs.Beal
<br /> then asked if staff could now provide an estimate of the cost for providing such \, -
<br /> a study as she had requested previously when the original request for the study
<br /> was not accepted. Consensus was that because of the impending discussion on the
<br /> Community Goals statements, one of which covered the question of costs of urban
<br /> services, 'requesting that information at this time would not be timely. Mrs.Beal
<br /> agreed to wait until the Goals adoption. ." -- -,..., - j. ." --" .-- - .. .. - ..-- _... - .. .._-.. ---. -
<br /> . .n. ....__...__._. - "", .. ,.;'. on .__.__n~ -.' ;..~~ ",- - "
<br /> Vote was taken on the motion to recognize the recommended changes Comm!
<br /> and postpone Plan amendment until the 1975 review. Motion carried, 6/26/74
<br /> all Councilmembers present voting aye, Councilmen Hershner, McDonald, Approve
<br /> and KeJlernpt p.!'.esent. -- .._.._._.--~~-' ~ -- -..."
<br /> - - ---
<br /> Improvement' petitions "
<br /> G. Sanitary sewer between 500 feet and 900 feet east of North Shasta LOOp and
<br /> - from Vine Maple Drive to 500 feet south - {7%
<br /> Sanitary sewer south of Storey Boulevard" east of Friendly, and west of I
<br /> i
<br /> View Lane - 100% Comm!
<br /> ., 6/26/711
<br /> Mr. williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to accept the pet~t~ons~
<br /> Motion carried unanimously. . . ' Approve
<br /> . " ,..... . ".' . .Id
<br /> Petition, Sanitary sewer to serve Tax Lots 500,600,700, and 800 off 30th Avenue i
<br /> Petitioned by owners of 100% of abutting properties. Cornm
<br /> I
<br /> Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the petition. 7/3/74
<br /> Appro~e
<br /> Motion carried unanimously. I
<br /> , ---7f8t.,tr-----r~- - -- ~ ~,,- ..'-'
<br /> _. - _..__._- __._._.__.________R. ,_ _." -- 244 -.-----.- - . - ,~.
<br />
|