04/25/1984 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e -- In response to another question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the City had filed with LUBA a notice of intent to appeal during the previous week. He explained that this letter began the appeal process and preserved the appeal rights, the actual legal work to begin during the next two to four weeks. He stated that the City Attorney's Office was currently engaged in discussions with the Lane County Administrator and counsel in regard to alternatives to litigation. Councilor Ball commented that his questions with regard to the relations between the neighborhood commercial criteria and the appeal were best left for executive session. Mr. Sercombe stated that discussing the City's chances in the appeal and the specific legal argument were best left for executive session. However, he stated that the General Plan stated that commercial development should not be performed in a strip development manner and that any neighborhood commercial development should be sited in the context of a center. He stated that the purpose of the plan was to make decisions in a comprehensive rather than an ad hoc manner. He added that the manner in which the decision was reached was the significant issue in the appeal. In response to a question on the time line, Mr. Sercombe stated that some ideas had been proposed to the counsel for Lane County, but that the dis- cussions have centered on other avenues besides litigation for resolving the City's concerns. He expected that the discussion will be completed prior to any further legal action by the County and that the County's position should be known in about 10 to 14 days. He believed that the City and the County may develop a mutually satisfactory solution that will allow Mr. Whitus some development opportunity, that addresses the City's concerns for developing the area in a comprehensive manner, and that allows the County to have some control of the direction taken in the area. Councilor Holmer stated that he was distressed by the process presented to the council. Stating that the council had received a letter from Mr. Whitus, he stated that the council had not had the opportunity to explore the issue with Mr. Whitus or the County Commissioners. Mr. Gleason commented that the council should meet in executive session if it wished to go any further with the issue. He felt that the appeal process was performed with great delibera- tion, by the Planning Commission, explaining that the council was not directly involved because it was a policy position taken by vote of the council that established the record. He stated that the council must change the General Plan if it wished to change the record, thus directly involving the council in the appeal. Mr. Holmer stated that he was concerned with the County Commis- sion arriving at a different decision while using the same rules as the City on the issue. Mr. Gleason stated that the courts will make the final decision, stating that the policy implication of the appeal was quite clear. He said the details of the implication could be addressed in a confidential memorandum or in executive session. He stressed that staff had been careful in the handling of the issue but had originally felt that the issue would have only minor significance. In response to a question, Mr. Sercombe stated that the distinction between "urban" and "urbanizable" land was raised early in the issue, but he did not believe that it would be an issue in the appeal. He stated that the Planning MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 25, 1984 Page 7