My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/12/1983 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1983
>
01/12/1983 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 5:23:23 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:39:36 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/12/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Councilors Ball and Lindberg asked what liabilities the City would face if it <br />set maximum process time frames and then was unable to meet them. Mr. Chenkin <br />responded that elapsed time would only be counted from the time a complete and <br />accurate application was received. He said there would be provisions for <br />extending the time, if necessary. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said <br />that traditionally if an application had not been acted on within the established <br />time frame, it is automatically determined to be approved. <br /> <br />Councilor Obie said that he had some concerns about the recommendations. He was <br />concerned with the length of time taken by present referrals to neighborhood <br />groups. He felt that the burden of responsibility should be placed on the <br />groups to act quickly so that time gaps in the process can be reduced. Mr. Obie <br />said he felt strongly that the citizenry should have access to its elected <br />officials. He was therefore hesitant to move too dramatically into the area of <br />government by bureaucracy. <br /> <br />Councilor Lindberg was concerned that the effort to reduce the number and length <br />of pUblic hearings might include restricting the testimony to matters of record. <br />He felt that if an appeal came to the City Council the council needed to hear <br />from people directly, not just to read the minutes and written materials. He <br />also felt that recently developed information should be able to be introduced <br />at appeal hearings. Mr. Chenkin responded that one provision that could be made <br />was that the appellant be required to base the appeal on a demonstration of <br />points in which the decision made was in error. He felt that if people are able <br />to introduce much new testimony at the appeal hearing, there might be a tendency <br />to save pertinent information purposely for the appeal hearing, thereby render- <br />ing the original hearing perfunctory. He said that one option would be that <br />when much new testimony is introduced at an appeal hearing, the matter be <br />referred back to the original hearing body to allow that body to consider the <br />new information. Mr. Gleason added that when new testimony is presented, it <br />often necessitates developing new findings. He said that each appellant review <br />generally adds one and one-half to two and one-half months to the process. Mr. <br />Chenkin said that the financial implications of these delays can often mean the <br />death of a project. <br /> <br />Mayor Keller agreed that processes need to be expedited, but shared the concerns <br />of Councilors Obie and Lindberg with giving up opportunities for final appeal to <br />the City Council. He asked staff to provide information on the implications of <br />proposed process amendments for the council workload. He felt that the pUblic <br />especially needed an opportunity to speak to the council on quasi-judicial <br />items, since ex parte contact regulations prevent citizens from addressing <br />councilors individually on such matters. He urged that developers and representa- <br />tives of such groups as the Homebuilders Association be invited to participate <br />in development of the process amendments early in the process. Mr. Chenkin <br />noted that later in the day he would making a presentation similar to the one he <br />had just made to the council at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Planning & <br />Land Use Committee and said staff hoped to work with this and other groups in <br />development of the amendments. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason noted that the council had recommended in its goals session that <br />City processes be made less cumbersome. He said that the City Attorney's Office <br />could work to develop amendments to let the council review certain decisions but <br />that if processes are to be streamlined, the council cannot hear all items. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council <br /> <br />January 12, 1983 <br /> <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.