Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> I ( <br /> M I NUT E S <br /> - Eugene City Council Work Session <br /> McNutt Room--City Hall <br /> September 11,1985 <br /> 11:30 a.m. <br /> PRESENT: Cynthia Wooten, Richard Hansen, Emily Schue, Freeman Holmer, Ruth <br /> Bascom, Debra Ehrman, Roger Rutan, Jeff Miller. <br /> The work session was called to order by His Honor Mayor Brian B. Obie. <br /> I. METROPOLITAN POLICY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF METRO PLAN AMENDMENTS <br /> Replying to a question from Mayor Obie, City Attorney Tim Sercombe said public <br /> notice was given of the council's discussion of the Metro Plan amendments on <br /> Monday, September 9, 1985. At that meeting, it was announced that the council <br /> would continue the discussion today. The required notice must be reasonably <br /> calculated to give notice to interested persons. He thought sufficient <br /> notification had been given. <br /> Councilors Hansen and Schue said they asked for instruction from the council <br /> e before the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, but the council would <br /> not have to vote formally. <br /> Planning Director Susan Brody distributed to the council a memo dated <br /> September 11,1985, concerning an alternative growth study. She said the <br /> study would determine which growth areas are appropriate for the metropolitan <br /> area expansi on. She discussed reasons for completing the study, the legal <br /> issues, implications for marketing the Industrial Tract, and the cost and work <br /> program implications of accelerating the alternative growth area study. She <br /> emphasized the importance of avoiding court action. <br /> Mr. Sercombe said the law requires a high standard of proof when so much land <br /> is included in the Urban Growth Boundary. The State law protects agricultural <br /> land and only permits its inclusion in the Urban Growth Boundary when there is <br /> no alternative. He said more work is needed to prepare the amendment <br /> request. Data will have to be developed to prepare findings because courts <br /> scrutinize privately produced data. If the data is refined, the applicant's <br /> proposal is analyzed, and supplementary data is generated, the proposed <br /> amendment will be significantly more defensible. <br /> Mr. Holmer wondered if the City is legally vulnerable if it does not approve <br /> the amendment request. Mr. Sercombe responded that the standard for denial is <br /> less exact than the standard for approval. <br /> It <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council Work Session September 11, 1985 Page 1 <br />