Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> e Mr. Lieuallen said, from his review of the materials, it seemed <br /> LCDC was concerned about site-specific urban service boundary and <br /> working toward more citizen understanding in the planning process. <br /> Mr. Saul responded the two areas of concern were citizen understanding <br /> and continuing to work with Lane County and Springfield in metro urban <br /> problems. Mr. Lieuallen wondered if the LCDC was concerned with a <br /> site-specific urban service boundary. Mr. Saul replied in the Fe- <br /> bruary meeting, LCDC had agreed that site-specific meant some clearly <br /> defined line, i.e., a river, a road, a ridgeline, etc. ~r. Lieuallen <br /> then further questioned whether staff thought LCDC would accept the <br /> report. Mr. Saul said according to materials provided by LCDC, once <br /> a jurisdiction has been determined to be in compliance, before a <br /> reversal of that determination is made, LCDC is required to notify, <br /> specify grounds, and give the jurisdiction an opportunity to respond. <br /> He said that has not occurred, so staff feels Eugene is still in <br /> compliance and is asking LCDC to recognize that. <br /> Mr. Delay noted LCDC had raised a question about exceptions pro- <br /> ceedings, especially regarding agricultural land. However, a more <br /> general concern of his was wondering if there was a problem of fric- <br /> tion between the City and LCDC staffs, citing some of the specific <br /> responses in the City's materials. Mayor Keller replied the reason <br /> the City was answering in that way was receipt of a letter August 5 in <br /> which it appeared LCDC felt the City was making no effort. Mr. Saul <br /> continued the letter had a number of statements which the City felt <br /> were prejudicial to the City. Mr. Delay said he was concerned, won- <br /> e dering if the staff response was not a bit inflamatory and wondered <br /> if the staff should move more toward a cooperative posture. <br /> Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to approve the recom- <br /> mendation and report. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> III. Street Vacation: Portion of Washington Street, south of 30th Avenue <br /> (Eugene Parks and Recreation) (SV 76-7) <br /> Recommended by Planning Commission June 27, 1977 with unanimous vote. <br /> Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. <br /> C.B. 1531--Vacating that portion of Washington Street, south of 30th <br /> Avenue, and maintaining public utility easement was read by <br /> council bill number and title only, there being no Council <br /> member present requesting it be read in full. <br /> Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be read <br /> the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous <br /> consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at <br /> this time. Motion carried unanimously, except Mr. Haws ab- <br /> staining, and the bill was read the second time by council <br /> bill number only. <br /> e <br /> 8/31/77--11 <br /> ~b~ <br />