Laserfiche WebLink
<br />agricultural land must be preserved, the City responds typically another <br />way. The City of Eugene has felt that land inside the City is urban land. <br />By rejecting that argument, it would appear that doubt has been cast on ~ <br />that basic plan provision. The validity of the rule itself may well be ... <br />decided in this case. No city has been in a stronger position to argue <br />that land inside is for urban use purposes than is Eugene at this time. <br />If the City does nothing, then Mr. Long said it would be saying that LCDC <br />has the right to review zoning actions, that it may substitute its judgment <br />for a city's judgment. In his view, that is not permitted and LCDC <br />does have that type of jurisdiction. An interesting legal question also <br />is whether the intervenors could sit differently than the City Council <br />for example, less quasi-judicially and being allowed ex parte contacts. <br />That question would need to be looked into and would be important in the <br />long run. Mr. Bradley suggested the idea of adopting the hearings official <br />process on rezonings. Other options he mentioned were treating the <br />decision of the City Council as valid and letting the intervenors decide <br />whether to appeal, or let them do nothing a~d let the petitioners decide <br />what to do. His position is that he has no problems with it coming back <br />and having the City Council either adopt new findings based on the record <br />or assign it to a hearings officer. Mr. Williams said he disagrees with <br />Mr. Bradley regarding having it come back to the Council because of the <br />precedent it would establish. He said that to say that adopting findings <br />in advance is invalid is absurd. Mr. Obie wondered if Mr. Bradley considered <br />LCDC to be the zoning authority for Eugene. Mr. Bradley does not see the <br />issue as being that broad. He sees it as a narrow issue which involves <br />correcting a procedure so as to legitimize a decision. He said that to do <br />that would be to rehear the matter. His assumption is that the City may <br />have done something wrong. If it is wrong, it would be easily corrected, ~ <br />and the problem would be eliminated. Mr. Saul said he didn't know how .., <br />that could be 'defined as a narrow issue. He feels Mr. Bradley is saying <br />that the whole procedure is wrong. Mr. Haws said that he felt the motion <br />was unnecessary as the staff could proceed as they had been authorized <br />already to do so. <br /> <br />Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that Council accept <br />staff's recommendations on how to proceed. <br /> <br />Mr. Bradley suggested that the staff be instructed to seek a rehearing, <br />but that, if that failed, it should come back to Council first before <br />deciding whether to go to the Court of Appeals. <br /> <br />Vote was taken on the motion which carried, Mr. Obie, Mr. Williams, <br />and Mr. Hamel voting aye, Mr. Lieuallen, Mr. Bradley and Mr. Haws <br />voting no, Ms. Smith abstaining, and Mayor Keller breaking the tie <br />by voting aye. <br /> <br />D. Status Report on Air Quality Maintenance Activities <br /> <br />Assistant City Manager Keith Martin reviewed the background of <br />the issues regarding the City's stand on clean air and livability. <br />He noted that there is increasing evidence that there is inability <br />of the filtering systems to catch sub-micron size particulate matters <br />that are dangerous. There is no way to assess the ratio between large <br />and small particulate matters. He said that the federal government, ~' <br /> <br />4/12/78--6 <br /> <br />152 <br />