Item 5: Ordinance Concerning the Transition of Annexation Procedures

Home Browse Search

Requires City Council approval of extra-territorial extensions rather than the Planning ? Director Requires public hearings for all annexation requests ? Increases public notification consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation ? Although the City Council did not specifically direct these policy changes, staff is providing this alternate draft of the ordinance to facilitate any intended motions on December 10, 2007. Further discussion of these revisions is included below. Extra-Territorial Extensions Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended a Type II process for the review of extra- territorial extensions. This remains unchanged in the draft ordinance in Attachment A. However, Councilor Bettman questioned whether the Type II process (Planning Director approval) was appropriate for extra-territorial extension applications. She indicated a preference to consider a Type IV or V process, or other option that requires City Council approval, rather than the proposed Type II process. In response, the alternative draft ordinance in Attachment B is crafted to require City Council approval as an alternative to the proposed Type II process. This alternative approach would be similar to the annexation review process, whereby applications would go directly to the City Council for a public hearing. Given the unique nature of these requests, staff believes that, if the council wishes to be the decision-maker with respect to extra-territorial extensions, the council review process set out in the alternative draft in Attachment B is more appropriate than the standard Type IV process. The Type IV process is typically used for site specific Metro Plan or Refinement Plan Amendment requests and also involves a two-step process with the Planning Commission and City Council. The Type V procedures would not be an appropriate tool as that process is limited to legislative actions. Councilor Bettman also requested that we ensure that the ordinance would generally prohibit the City from extending water or sewer service to areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). This is ensured through the approval criterion at EC 9.8121(1) which only allows approval of an extension where the property proposed to be served is located within the City’s UGB, the airport, or Lane Community College. Two exceptions to this general prohibition are specified under 9.8121(8), which would allow the council to approve such an extension in the case of a communicable disease hazard for which the extension is the only practical remedy or where, consistent with existing council policy, EWEB has entered into an agreement to provide water services to properties within a now dissolved water district. Apart from the land use approval process included in the draft ordinance, due to the City Charter relationship between the City of Eugene and EWEB, the City Council must also approve of any proposals by which EWEB would enable another entity (by its provision of water or services) to expand service areas. To the extent necessary, this is addressed in Section 1 of the Ordinance, amending EC 2.212. Councilor Bettman also suggested that the code provisions be more clearly tied to the detailed policy direction in Eugene Resolution 2643, concerning extra-territorial extensions. In both of the attached draft ordinances, we have provided such clarification by inserting several references to, and consistency requirements with; “adopted resolutions” (See proposed revisions to EC 2.212, 9.8115, 9.8121 and to Ordinance Section 8). The City rarely includes in its code a reference to a specific resolution, as such a reference would need to be amended if the resolution Page 2 of 4