Item 4A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mr. Nystrom said the provisions that were being considered were currently in place; this included who administered the code. He stressed that this would remain the same. Ms. Bettman was amenable to batching annexations. She thought it would make sense to assume that there would be a public hearing for the whole batch and then whatever was controversial would “come up.” In response to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome explained that the use of the term territory throughout the ordinance came from the statutes. She clarified that extra-territorial meant land that was outside the city limits. Ms. Bettman observed that the findings indicated that the amendments only impacted land that was urbanizable within the UGB and this seemed to exclude amendments having to do with extra-territorial land. She declared that this was an inconsistency and though they were rare they were significant. She noted that they were being proposed to be processed as a “Type 2” application, which meant the Planning Director acted on it and then if there was an appeal it would be brought before the Hearings Official. She opined that extra-territorial issues were “major policy issues according to the Metro Plan.” She thought they should be processed by the City Council after being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Jerome clarified that while these items were land use items they were not code amendments and so would not have to be heard by the Planning Commission first. She said such items could be presented to the Planning Commission if the council so chose. Ms. Ortiz asked if the approved criteria for annexations that indicated that properties that were non- contiguous would not be annexed, would still be in place. Mr. Nystrom affirmed that this was the current policy, as adopted by the City Council. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for all the work staff had done to craft an ordinance to put this system in place. He said he assumed that the public hearings held by the Planning Commission and to be held by the City Council would bring about some changes to the ordinance language. Ms. Jerome commented that what was before the council was a condensed version of what the council was required to do under the statutes. She stressed that the statutes were very prescriptive about the process but said very little regarding the criteria, application requirements, fees, and so on. Mr. Zelenka surmised that all of the existing policies were still intact and the chief purpose of the ordinance was to take the Boundary Commission function for within the UGB and transfer it to the City Council. Mr. Nystrom responded that staff had made an effort to ensure the policies were left intact, but one area that could not be included because of a change in state law was the policies that applied to non-contiguous annexations. In response to a question from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Nystrom affirmed that annexation would not be triggered by a remodel. Ms. Bettman said the term “within the community” had been used under the policies related to extra- territorial lands regarding the extension of water and sewer service and she found the term to be vague. Ms. Bettman remarked that the purpose of annexation, as stated in the ordinance language, was just so that the City was consistent with State law. She asked if this was really the only purpose for the processes or should the language reference consistency with the Metro Plan as well. Ms. Jerome replied that both of those were in the “purpose section” and the language could be changed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 31, 2007 Page 3 Work Session