12/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Haws requested that he be provided with criteria that determine in which order areas will be studied. Planning Director said that information would be provided. perhaps then discussion could be held on changing priorities, taking budgetary decisions into consideration. There is, he added, some justification e I for existing priorities through analysis and planning, and they are included in the 1990 Plan refinement process for all neighborhoods. Comm 11/26/75 Mayor Anderson also suggested communicating with the West University Neighborhood Affirm as they may be unaware of the priorities. Councilman Murray said that in conversation with Thorn Chambliss of the West University Neighborhood group it was brought out that the group was not so much interested in priorities or timing of refinement study for that area as they were with what would happen between now and when the refinement planning did take place. Mr. Murray sug- gested planning department contact with the group to clarify the situation. Manager said contact had been made with the group, that a report was being prepared. He said his understanding was that it was possible some interim action could be taken in contrast ,to a full-fledged refinement study. H. Council Meeting Schedu.Ie During Holidays - Manager suggested reschedu.Iing the December 24 committee meeting to December 23, and omitting the December 31 meet- ing and holding the next one on January 7. This arrangement would then allow COlplll for two committee meetings before the January 12 Council meeting. 11/26/75 Affirm It was agreed the schedule suggested was acceptable and there were no objections to the normal schedule for formal Council meetings (December 8 and 22). I. Water Extension Policy - Manager alluded to the fact that Council has provided e guidelines and shown interest in attempting to prevent extension policies from developing which would result in scattered suburbia, particularly outside the urban service boundary. The EWEB staff is concerned that recent Boundary Com- mission actions in extending water service to the Shade Oaks Subdivision will result in proliferation of demands on service extension. They have received many calls requesting extension - it seems that developers and others are very interested in trying to follow through on what seems to be a precedent set by the Boundary Commission. There is concern by city and county staffs and others whether the precedent violates the 1990 Plan. Manager said that Mr. Parks, EWEB general manager, is not certain how that board will act, but it would appear there will be some law suits because their contract with Wil1amette Water Company restricts the way water can be sold and provisions of the contract would not appear to permit them to provide water to the Shade Oak Subdivision. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, explained that it is correct that extension of water by the willamette Water Company to Shade Oaks would be outside the existing EWEB-wil1amette Water area. Extension requires EWEB concurrence under the terms of their contract with wi1lamette Water Company. The Boundary Commis- sion says that if EWEB does not consent to extension, the Commission grant is of no effect. The matter is therefore in EWEB's hands. Manager noted the idea has been explored of asking the Boundary Commission to reconsider its action, or perhaps go to the LCDC, the state agency, asking them to overrule the Boundary Commission, which would possibly involve litigation. - Mr. Long said he would need to see the November 6 Boundary Commission minutes first, but it should be noted that the proponents' case for extension is very stronfJ. The people in that area are suffering, and the Boundary Commission 12/8/75 - 16 ~47