12/22/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

efficient arrangement. (That could be interpreted to mean a single facility is not extended beyond the urban service boundary to the exclusion of other facilities without considering the resultant effects). Also, the plan states water and sewer service should beorovided simultaneously. Finally, the plan allows for extension if there is a threat to public health and public e safety. Mr. Chenk.!~l!..<?!:.f!d that ORS 448 gi V::s as a defini tion of heal th hazard water that includes certain foreign substances that can cause disease or physical suffering. The definition does not include the absence or scarcity of water. That interpretation of the definition was included in the resolution proposed to Council by Planning and adopted in October. Planning also suggests that, if shortage of water is used as a definition of health hazard, there would be serious problems defining limits to providing water service in other cases. There are a number of requests waiting now on the outcome of this matter, and persons would be coming forth to ask if shortage of water in and of itself is adequate rationale for extension. Mr. Williams thanked Mr. Chenkin for his presentation and added that, as he understands it, the laws of a particular area are the laws that should be applied to that area. In this regard, it would mean that the question of extension of water to the Shade Oaks subdivision should be interpreted under the laws of the county. If that logic is correct, the Lane County code would be the law that would be used to interpret the 1990 Plan, and that code includes shortage of water as a definition of health hazard. Mr. Williams does not disagree with potential implications of extending services beyond the urban service boundary, but it seems that the law as it now exists pretty clearly says the 1990 Plan does not conflict with extension of water to the Shade Oaks area. Mr. Murray feels it is essential to protect city policies; it is all that stands between orderly growth and uncontrolled urban sprawl. It seems critical to him that those policies are accepted and believed in and that the utmost is done to e defend them. Mr. Henry noted communication should be made to the County and to EWEB. He suggested that the City Attorney perhaps first investigate the county's legal situation and perhaps recommend changes - certainly in the area of building permit administration recommendations might well be made to tighten IIp permits where there is no potable water. It was understood the discussion would be continued to the 10/17 COmnUttee meeting. FF. Assessment Hearing Panel - January Substitute for Mrs. Beal (1976 Roster: Bradley/Murray: April-June Comm Hamel/Shirey: July-September 12/17/75 Keller/Haws: October-December File Mr. Bradley consented to serve with Mr. Williams on the January 6 assessment panel, as Mrs. Beal will not be in the country on that date. GG. ESATS Alternatives Selection - Planning cOmnUsslon December 15, 1975, report distributed to Council recommending the City continue to endorse the goals set out in the Community Goals and Policies and the 1990 General Plan. It further recommends that a comprehensive transportation plan be adopted based on 15 percent mass transit usage; 10 percent auto trip reduction; promotion of a growth pattern to minimize total travel demand; maintenance and improvement of streets and Comm highways to provide mobility for automobiles, trucks, transit vehicles, and 12/17/75 biCYCles; implementation of the Metro Area Bikeway Plan and Master Bike Plan; File e development of pedestrian wal"kways; and review of the transportation planning process at no less than five-year intervals. Fi~ally, it recommends that the Council adopt the y~ as the time EranJe Eor achieving the long-range goals set Eorth above. . - 12/22/75 - 15 '='(08