01/12/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - Councilors Ball and Lindberg asked what liabilities the City would face if it set maximum process time frames and then was unable to meet them. Mr. Chenkin responded that elapsed time would only be counted from the time a complete and accurate application was received. He said there would be provisions for extending the time, if necessary. Tim Sercombe, City Attorney's Office, said that traditionally if an application had not been acted on within the established time frame, it is automatically determined to be approved. Councilor Obie said that he had some concerns about the recommendations. He was concerned with the length of time taken by present referrals to neighborhood groups. He felt that the burden of responsibility should be placed on the groups to act quickly so that time gaps in the process can be reduced. Mr. Obie said he felt strongly that the citizenry should have access to its elected officials. He was therefore hesitant to move too dramatically into the area of government by bureaucracy. Councilor Lindberg was concerned that the effort to reduce the number and length of pUblic hearings might include restricting the testimony to matters of record. He felt that if an appeal came to the City Council the council needed to hear from people directly, not just to read the minutes and written materials. He also felt that recently developed information should be able to be introduced at appeal hearings. Mr. Chenkin responded that one provision that could be made was that the appellant be required to base the appeal on a demonstration of points in which the decision made was in error. He felt that if people are able to introduce much new testimony at the appeal hearing, there might be a tendency to save pertinent information purposely for the appeal hearing, thereby render- ing the original hearing perfunctory. He said that one option would be that when much new testimony is introduced at an appeal hearing, the matter be referred back to the original hearing body to allow that body to consider the new information. Mr. Gleason added that when new testimony is presented, it often necessitates developing new findings. He said that each appellant review generally adds one and one-half to two and one-half months to the process. Mr. Chenkin said that the financial implications of these delays can often mean the death of a project. Mayor Keller agreed that processes need to be expedited, but shared the concerns of Councilors Obie and Lindberg with giving up opportunities for final appeal to the City Council. He asked staff to provide information on the implications of proposed process amendments for the council workload. He felt that the pUblic especially needed an opportunity to speak to the council on quasi-judicial items, since ex parte contact regulations prevent citizens from addressing councilors individually on such matters. He urged that developers and representa- tives of such groups as the Homebuilders Association be invited to participate in development of the process amendments early in the process. Mr. Chenkin noted that later in the day he would making a presentation similar to the one he had just made to the council at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Planning & Land Use Committee and said staff hoped to work with this and other groups in development of the amendments. Mr. Gleason noted that the council had recommended in its goals session that City processes be made less cumbersome. He said that the City Attorney's Office could work to develop amendments to let the council review certain decisions but that if processes are to be streamlined, the council cannot hear all items. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 12, 1983 Page 8