09/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that time. He said the Board was always very interested in comments of local agencies. The difficulty was in presenting individual Council members' views if there e was no consensus. Whatever position the Council took, he said, could be presented to the Board at the time of its deliberation on final action with regard to speed zones. Manager Henry said he would take the responsibility for relaying the Council's view- point to the Board. In response to Councilman Keller, Manager said the State Speed Control Board has the authority for setting speed limits in the state, that the matter now before the Council was the review of the Board's primary recommendations. Reaction of the Council to those recommendations would be taken back to the Board after which it would take final action. He added that if the city refused to post the speeds as finally set by the Board, a legal question would probably be involved requiring adjudication. / Councilman Bradley asked whether the city had the authority to establish speed zones independent of the State Board, whether a complete list of streets on which speeds were to be recommended had to be sent to the Board. Assistant Manager explained that the reason these zones were brought to the Council was because there was an obvious difference between the posted speeds and they way the streets were being driven. The State Board was asked to evaluate those particular locations. Results of that investi- gation are the issue of this discussion wherein the city comment is invited prior to final Board action. If there is disagreement with final action, he said, it could be taken to court. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. III-A-I M. Annexation, Eugene Sand & Gravel Property (Belt Line and Delta) - Brought back at the request of the Council after denial by the Boundary Commission. Copies of Boundary e Commission minutes reflecting the denial were previously distributed to Council members. John Alltucker, owner of most of the property involved, when asked for comment, said reconsideration of the annexation was news to him, he had thought the matter ended when denied by the Boundary Commission. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, in response to Council request for comment, said there was no appeal procedure other than writ of review. If that was successful - and he said he was not indicating that it would be - the Boundary Commission would have to hear the issue again. He said that if the Council wished to pursue the annexation of that area it could cause a new application to be filed for Boundary Commission consideration again, but he noted that the annexation had been rejected on a unanimous vote of the Commission. Review of Commission minutes, he said, indi- cated it was a judgmental matter in which the Commission disagreed with the council decision, and they had the prerogative of making that judgment. Councilman Haws said he was assuming the Commission voted against the annexation be- cause the city record was not good enough, that perhaps by taking it back again the city could make a better case on the facts. Mr. Long said his answer would depend upon the purpose of what the Council wanted the record to show - if for the purpose of pursuing some kind of legal questions, it would be necessary to go through another hearing; if for the purpose of persuading the Boundary Commission to take an affirma- tive position, that was a planning matter. John Porter, planning director, didn't think the Commission disagreed with the city's position that the area was within the urban service boundary, city services were available, etc. Rather, the Co~ssion was convinced by Mr. Alltucker that he did not need city services and annexation e would be of no benefit to him. That, he said, is what is of record. In response to Council questions, Mr. Long said the only viable option, if the issue was to be pursued, was to start the process over again, there was no Boundary Com- mission rehearing procedure that he was aware of. ~3 9/8/75 - 15