Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- <br /> <br />Ms. Schue noted that the applicant had been waiting a long time. She <br />thought the traffic problem would be solved in the near future. Mr. <br />Farah pointed out the traffic solution was in County control so there <br />was no guarantee. Ms. Schue observed that it was not an ideal solu- <br />tion, but she would go along with the interim solution as long as the <br />applicant was willing to participate in the River Road trunk line when <br />it was built. <br /> <br />Res. No. 3346--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary <br />Commission for annexation of property located east of <br />River Road, north of Division Avenue to the city of <br />Eugene and the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater <br />Service District. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- <br />porting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff <br />notes and minutes of February 18, 1980, be adopted by reference <br />thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen observed that they were creating an oddball boundary. <br />This was not infilling--it was leap-frogging. He was opposed to it. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay was concerned that other property owners would come to them <br />with the same request. He wondered what the consequences would be and <br />whether they could be accommodated. He supported the original finding <br />of fact and was opposed to the motion before the council. <br /> <br />Mr. Lieuallen indicated that he has suspected that special service <br />districts are being formed to provide sewers for Santa Clara while <br />ignoring the problem in River Rd. and this annexation confirms his suspicion. He <br />feels the council should be kept informed about special service <br />districts that include River Road for the purpose of sewering Santa <br />Clara and be made aware of whether or not what is happening is simply <br />a financing mechanism supported by River Road for sewering Santa <br />Clara. <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />Mr. Delay clarified his position by explaining that the trunk line was <br />designed to serve the other (south) side of Beltline. He asked Mr. <br />Gilman if it were true that if the area north of Beltline were to be <br />connected to the sewer, it would not be through that trunk line. Mr. <br />Gilman agreed yes, the pressure line there was to serve the Danebo <br />area and was anticipated to serve most of River Road to Beltline. The <br />system north of Beltline becomes difficult because the ground slopes <br />to the north so the gravity system flow north has to be pumped south <br />to get to the plant. There is a question of whether it would be <br />better to have it go north in a gravity system. The final design has <br />not been worked out. The existing area could use the capacity of the <br />trunk line by designing a pumping station and pumping at off-peak <br />hours. It could be made to work. This sewer trunk line was not <br />designed to serve that area. Mr. Delay said if it was logical for <br />this property it would be logical for other properties and then there <br />would be a deterioration of the designed capacity. He could not <br />support this proposal. <br /> <br />4/28/80--5 <br />