Res. No. 2759--Forwarding to Boundary Commission recommendation for <br />annexation of property located between I-105 and <br />Willamette River, west of Country Club Road was read <br />by number and title. <br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to adopt the resolution. <br />Mr. Bradley asked for clarification as to whether this annexation <br />complied with Goal No. 15 of the Statewide Goals. Mr. Saul responded <br />the purpose of Goal 15 was to review the development on the property <br />in compliance with the Goal. Mr. Bradley said he was under the <br />impression that municipal annexations must comply with LCDC goals. <br />He asked if there were a goal of LCDC that would apply to this annexa- <br />tion, and if that were No. 15, whether it was necessary to adopt <br />affirmative findings. Mr. Saul again explained that question would <br />come when the specific PUD development was being reviewed to see if it <br />complied with that goal. Mr. Bradley requested a clarification from <br />the City Attorney. <br />Mr. Long referred to the Peterson vs. Klamath Falls case which dealt <br />with a situation where City-County had no boundary commission. <br />He felt the Lane County Boundary Commission was under obligation <br />to determine compliance with the goals. The purpose of this City <br />is to recommend only. He said Mr. Bradley's question was under <br />study by the Attorney's Office, but thought it was within a realm of <br />reasonable activity to not make such findings when. only recommending <br />for annexation. <br />Vote was taken on the motion, which carried with all Council <br />members present voting aye except Mr. Bradley and Ms. Smith <br />abstaining. <br />C.B. 1545--Rezoning from County PR to City C-2 PD property located <br />between I-105 and Willamette River, west of Country Club <br />Road, was read by council bill number and title only, there <br />being no Council member present requesting that it be read <br />in full. <br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting <br />the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and <br />minutes of August 8, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; that <br />the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, <br />with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be <br />considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, except <br />Ms. Smith and Mr. Bradley abstaining and the bill was read the <br />second time by council bill number only. <br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that the bill be approved <br />and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Council members <br />present voting aye, except Ms. Smith and Mr. Bradley abstaining, <br />the bill was declared passed and numbered 18054. <br />9/26/77--14 <br />X37 <br />