09/08/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

eventually that will be phased out. He took exception to the statement that urban services were not needed. It was his understanding that a good deal of city water was used and that was considered one of the major city services. He said the e Boundary Commission had the'final authority for annexation of areas, and whether this property was annexed under any circumstance would be the Commission's decision. Assistant Manager added that at this time the only way the property could be annexed was if it were an island or through affirmative vote of the Boundary Commission on petition of the property owner. He thought the Boundary Commission in practice was reluctant to create an enclave unless there was public policy that would justify it. Councilman Haws was concerned about lack of any consistent policy with regard to annexation, particularly as it referred to the subject area, that in the end, the area probably would be annexed anyway. Manager noted that the Planning Commission is now reviewing guidelines and standards for annexation and would be sending a recommendation to the Council shortly. Mr. Keller moved second by Mr. Williams to rescind action taken in com- mittee on September 3, 1975 reinitiating annexation of Eugene Sand & Gravel property. Councilman Bradley thought annexation of this property was extremely important when considering long-range planning in that area. He suggested that previous annexations had committed the city to such long-range planning needs. He asked the Council not to take the action proposed and instead send the annexation recommendation back to the Boundary Commission rather than to the Planning Commission. He thought it too important an issue for the Council to change direction at this time. He also thought the Boundary Commission's having final authority in annexations was a policy issue that should be addressed. He thought authority for annexing properties resting with the Commission was not in the best interests of the city. He again urged the Council tit to "run the issue throught the Boundary Commission again" to give an opportunity for presentation of issues that may not have been presented by staff the last time around. Councilman Murray concurred in Mr. Bradley's remarks but thought it would be to no effect to take the issue back to the Commission. Vote was taken on the motion to rescind committee action. Motion carried - Council members Murray, Keller, Williams, Harne 1 , Haws, and Shirey voting aye; Council members Beal and Bradley voting no. N. Council Minutes - May 12 and 19, 1975 as circulated Approve O. Council Orientatipn Session was tentatively scheduled for Saturday, Corom November 1, 1975, there being no objections from those Council members 8/27/75 present. Affirm P.Council Schedule for Review of ESATS Update - Copies of memo from planning director were previously distributed to Council members with regard to proposed schedule of ESATS update review. Manager reviewed the schedule as proposed and said it would anticipate action by the Council at its December 22 meeting and recommendation to LCOG by January so that printing of the final report could be started by February 1. There were no objections and it was understood Council members would reserve the dates listed for meetings to review the ESATS update. Corom Q. Deer PO.Z1.ut.ion was the subject of a letter from N. B. Giustina who asked for suy- 8/27/75 Affirm yesbons from the Council for solving the problems faced by people living in the e sout:h hills by deer ruining gardens, eating .roses and shrubs, tearing up rhododCll- drons. He called attention to the ineffectiveness of "deer crossing" s~i9ns. Counci ~lwoman Beal suggested a check wi th the State Game Commission w.i th regard to rcgulat.ions governing deer control. Councilwoman Shirey suggested referral of the letter to the neighborhood association in that area to work out some solution. 50S 9/8/75 - 17