04/12/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- Directors of the League of Oregon Cities subsequently directed its legal staff to intervene. That intervention was denied. Following a hearing on the merits of the appeal, said Mr. Saul, the Hearings Officer recommended in November 1977, that the City would be obligated to comply with the requirements of Goal 3 and Goal 2. LCDC conducted a hearing in December and at that time the Commission denied the request of the League of Oregon Cities to intervene. It also postponed a decision on the appeal pending adoption of an administrative rule which dealt with the status of lands within City boundaries under the statewide goals. LCDC considered the administrative rule on January 19, 1978, and amended that rule to state that land within City boundaries was either urbanizable or urban under statewide goals. That action eliminated the contention that either Goal 3 or Goal 2 applied to the challenged rezoning. Mr. Saul continued that the revised recommendation was submitted on February 14, 1978. It held that the property had to be considered urbanizable land, that the conversion standards in Goal 14 involving change from urbanizable to urban had to be applied at the time of rezoning and that the City had failed to adopt any findings supporting the decision on the rezoning. LCDC on April 6 took the following action: 1) Rejected the position of the Hearings Officer that the City failed to adopt findings of fact. 2) Determined that the findings of fact adopted by the City were insufficient because the findings were prepared prior to the pUblic hearing. Mr. Saul concluded that staff feels the issues include: e 1. Jurisdiction. The City's position is supported by sources which include legislative history, numerous commentaries on statutes, and the League of Oregon Cities' position. 2. Procedure. There are multiple questions concerning the standards to be applied which should be resolved by a Court. 3. Substance. The April 6 determination of the Commission that the findings of the Council were insufficient, because they were prepared prior to the public hearing, raises a number of concerns about the Council's decision-making process. City Attorney Stan Long summarized that there are two possible options for seeking a reversal: 1. Petition for re-hearing. The City Attorney's office is investigating that option. 2. In the event a re-hearing is denied, the City should appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals. Mr. Haws wondered what it is LCDC thinks it wants Eugene to do. Mr. Saul said that question would be hard to answer. He noted that one Commission member said that, if the matter were sent back to the City, he wondered what it is they would want the City to do that they have not already done. There was no answer to that question at that time. Mr. Long noted the formal parties in the matter are the petitioners, the City, and the property owners. Mr. Haws wondered if another party could pursue the matter should the City decide not to. Mr. Long said that they would be legally able to do so. Mr. Haws said he was troubled with when the City should bow out and let the property owners start paying for it. Mr. Long said that has been done in simple issues but that, when confronted with claims that the 1990 Plan is invalid, and processes are in error, and - 4/12/78--5 .<51