07/21/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

is outside the City limits. He said within the General Plan the City has agreed to allow industrial sitings in those areas that are within the Urban Growth Boundary. Because of the triple majority requirement in the State law for e annexation, he said it was very likely, unless someone is forced to be annexed that does not want to be annexed, that the City will have to provide services outside the City limits or come up with an annexation procedure. His feeling was that the proposal before the council allowed it to have the mechanism for annexing land when it has to be serviced, without forcing adjacent property owners to be annexed. Mr. Farah said the proposal was for industrial lands between the City limits and the Urban Growth Boundary. In terms of industrial lands, staff did not believe there was anything sacred about contiguity. The servicing of industrial lands is markedly different from the servicing requirements of residential properties where contiguity may be a much more important criterion. Staff felt the proposal was saying what had been said during the discussions which developed the Metro- politan General Plan; that the cities will be the providers of urban services, that urbanization will occur in the area out to the Urban Growth Boundary, and that the best way to deal with the issues is to develop an active annexation attitude regarding industrial lands. Staff did not believe this was a dramatic step; only an incremental step. Ms. Wooten said she respected the work of the staff and the elected officials committee; however, she was very nervous about the proposal. If the City, for example, agrees to an annexation that is on the outer fringe of the Urban Growth Boundary, she was concerned that this would create a precedent for going beyond the boundary. She did not want the council to send a signal that it was prepared to deal with requests like that. e Mr. Gleason said the City Attorney had pointed out that the proposal only dealt with voluntary annexations, and was not binding on the council in terms of an annexation decision. Staff was asking for a determination of the policy. An annexation may come before the council which it may not wish to accept. This proposal does not bind the council for those future decisions. Ms. Wooten asked if the council could have more information about the application that had been received. Staff said that was possible. Ms. Miller did not feel that was the proper way to proceed. She said the proposal did not concern one particular application and she wanted to proceed with the policy decision on the basis of whether the council felt the policy was appropriate or not. When an application is received, she said the council could review it and de~ide whether it is an appropriate candidate for annexation and whether it should be taken to the Boundary Commission. She said the proposal was for specific City policy for implementing the General Plan. She said the General Plan was agreed to by all three jurisdictions and within a short time should be approved by LCDC. She said during the discussions in the adoption procedure of the General Plan, the council reviewed the implications for the City. She felt the council over the next five years or so would have this kind of decision regarding implementation of the General Plan. Ms. Miller said she had no problem with the council saying that as it implements the General Plan it is implementing basic City policy that cities are the providers of urban services. If there is an opportunity to provide an area for e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1982 Page 7