Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Legislature, ORS 199 was removed. He said the City had not taken a position on the status of the Boundary Commission and he felt that was a mistake, particularly with respect to not allowing noncontiguous annexations. He illustrated on a map parcels that were .4 acres or larger and could be partitioned into two lots. He said those parcels were in an area considered urbanized land and to not allow further density to develop naturally went against Statewide Planning Goals and growth management policies. He said reincorporating ORS 199 into the annexation legislation would allow the property to develop in accordance with standard practices. Zachary Vishanoff, Ward 3, Eugene, questioned whether the ordinance would allow for a satellite urban village in the middle of nowhere and if growth could occur more easily if the ordinance was passed. He felt the City did not understand public opinion regarding growth and citizen groups should be formed around issues such as parks and the greenway and the urban growth boundary (UGB). He said the groups should be composed of individuals from a wide range of background to assure a balanced representation and avoid extremes. James R. Seaberry, 1475 Green Acres Road, Eugene, read a portion of the testimony from Representative Chris Edwards supporting legislation to disband the Boundary Commission and opposing annexation of River Road and Santa Clara properties. He stated he would mail copies of the full testimony to councilors. John A. Dotson, 2447 Canterbury Street, Eugene, reviewed a history of annexations under the Boundary Commission and the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Eugene and Lane County, which allowed the City to administer the County permitting process. He said the City encouraged ad hoc annexation and semi-voluntary annexations occurred; citizens inside the UGB had redress through the Boundary Commission, but that would no longer exist after January 1, 2008, and the continuance of the intergovernmental agreement presented a major problem. He said citizens would have nowhere to take their concerns for review. Lauri Segel, 642 Charnelton Street, Eugene, Goal 1 Coalition, expressed concern that the Metro Plan was being marginalized. She said there were inconsistencies between the proposed code and the plan caused by abolishment of the Boundary Commission and ORS 199, but the position of staff was that this would be addressed at a later date. She said the most significant growth management policy with which the code was inconsistent was Policy 2.C.12.a-c, which allowed noncontiguous annexations. She said Metro Plan review and, if necessary, amendments, should be initiated if changes in the basic assumptions in the plan occurred; ORS 222 replacing the assumptions of ORS 199 constituted such a change. She pointed out that the Metro Plan citizen involvement policies did support better notice provisions. She supported the proposed 30-day notice provision and public hearings for all annexations. Rob Handy, 455 1/2 River Road, Eugene, submitted written comments on behalf of the River Road Community Organization. He commended staff and the Planning Commission for their work on the ordinance and agreed with the commission's recommendations. He asked for definitions of "territory" and "double- and triple-majority." He questioned whether expedited procedures were allowed under ORS 222 and whether the ordinance should include language from the council's resolution related to street and right- of-way annexations. He also asked about impacts on special districts, such as park districts, when properties were withdrawn, as well as the implications for comprehensive and functional plans. Kate Perle, Eugene, 4740 Windover Street, Santa Clara, speaking for the Santa Clara Community Organization, requested additional changes to the proposed ordinance to reflect the recommendations of the Planning Commission, specifically regarding improved public noticing. She also encouraged a modified two-track process that would require public hearings for any City-modified private annexation application, MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 2 Public Hearing