02/20/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

D. Manager introduced Adrienne Lannom, Planning Commission, who would make a brief statement on the special meeting of the Eugene Planning Commission held February 19, 1980. Ms. Lannom referred to the Eugene Planning Commission's report to the Metro Area Planning Commissions Coordinating Committee on Friday, February 22, 1980. That report states that the Commission's position on the Jurisdictional Boundary of the Metro Plan Update is that the Jurisdictional Boundary should be where it is designated on the diagram of the Metro Plan Update Draft. The rationale for that position is that the area beyond the Urban Growth Boundary out to the Jurisdictional Boundary has been recognized as being part of the initial Metropolitan Area General Plan. If the plan is to include these areas, all three jurisdictions should have equal authority in the long-range planning activities in that area. Also, both cities have a real interest in planning decisions that take place within the area of the Jurisdictional Boundary and should have an equal voice in deciding long-range planning for these areas. Ms. Lannom also indi- cated there are areas between the Urban Growth Boundary and the Jurisdictional Boundary for which the designations on the diagram should be refined in order to indicate existing land use patterns. Mayor Keller asked whether the land use issue would most likely end up before LCDC if the City keeps this position. Ms. Lannom responded that was a correct assumption. Mayor Keller further asked whether the City of Springfield is supportive and Ms. Lannom replied that they have maintained the same position. Mayor Keller then asked if it would be appropriate for the Council to meet and discuss this since the Council had not been dealing with this issue but, rather, it had been handled by the Planning Commission. Ms. Lannom responded that she felt it is a planning issue at this point and it would be best to let them continue with the Update and that it would be resolved. Ms. Smith asked if Springfield had taken action and Ms. Lannom responded that they have taken some prior action. Ms. Miller noted that she sees no reason why we should change our position at this time, but when the Planning Commission feels they are at an impasse, perhaps the Council would become more actively involved. II. APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the Council Minutes of February 6, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO ADOPT AN INDUSTRIAL WASTE COST RECOVERY SYSTEM AT MAHLON SWEET AIRPORT (Memo Distributed) Mr. Henry noted that Res. No. 3312 is a requirement of the Federal government. Res. No. 3312--A resolution declaring an intent to adopt an industrial waste cost recovery system at Mahlon Sweet Airport Treatment Facilities. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. 2/20/80--2 e e e