Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

including rights-of-way and contiguous public land, and involve any property over two acres in size. She said using a batch approach to the public hearing process would be efficient. Ms. Piercy closed the hearing and thanked those who spoke. Ms. Taylor commended the persistence and hard work of Crest Drive neighborhood residents and urged the council's support for 9-foot travel lanes. She said that bicycles could use the sidewalks planned for pedestrians, especially for uphill travel. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to extend the record to November 30, 2007. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman asked if the council should initiate a Metro Plan amendment limited to deleting references to the Boundary Commission. City Attorney Emily Jerome replied that there were other issues arising from Senate Bill 417 that should be addressed and if the council wished to initiate a Metro Plan amendment process, staff could return with information on what amendments were necessary. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to initiate a Metro Plan amendment to address issues arising from Senate Bill 417. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Ms. Bettman stated that the historic intent of extra-territorial extensions of water and sewer service was not general "business as usual;" they were reserved for the transition area inside the UGB, with some very specific exceptions. She wanted language in purpose and applicability that included a reference to Resolution 2643, which would also need to be amended to remove references to the Boundary Commission. She said 9.8117 should be revised as follows: "…located outside of the city limits, but within the urban growth boundary, with the exception of Lane Community College campus as pertains to water." Mr. Clark thanked the Santa Clark Community Organization for its comments. He asked if the organiza- tion's proposed amendments could be accommodated. Mr. Nystrom said in general there were no major concerns as the suggestions were feasible options. Ms. Bettman asked if 9.8121(2) allowed extensions to noncontiguous properties under the criteria set forth in EC 9.7825. Ms. Jerome said the provision's intent was to indicate that if a property could be annexed, it should be annexed first and the criteria included noncontiguous annexations. She said the language could be clarified to address a stronger policy against that type of annexation. Ms. Bettman requested a memorandum with further explanation of that provision. She asked about the meaning of 9.8121(8)(b). Mr. Nystrom replied that the provision referred to several specific locations where water districts had been dissolved and Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) had assumed those responsibilities. He said the Santa Clara and River Road water districts were still active within the UGB. Ms. Bettman pointed out that 9.8121(8)(a) did not reference a method for determining a health hazard. Mr. Nystrom said staff was working from existing policies and there was no precedent. He said staff would focus on clarifying qualifications of projects within the UGB and those that were not otherwise ineligible for annexation due to the fact they were noncontinguous. He said that would focus back on policies that were already in place and help address Ms. Bettman's concerns. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 3 Public Hearing