Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Bettman said language in Resolution 2643 on the referral of applications related to dissolved water <br />districts from the Boundary Commission to the City Council would need to be amended. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked staff to reiterate the City's policy on island and involuntary annexations. Mr. Nystrom <br />said the City had a policy that it could pursue street annexations when it did not create islands in the River <br />Road/Santa Clara area. Ms. Jerome said the statutes identified three consensual scenarios; those did not <br />require 100 percent of owners and electors in an area in order to be considered. She said the ordinance did <br />not provide any additional scenarios and did not include implementation of the statutes on annexing islands, <br />which were by their nature typically involuntary. She said health hazard annexations were rare and it was <br />unlikely the City would initiate one; if that should happen, the statutes would be relied upon. <br /> <br />Mr. Zelenka asked staff to respond to Mr. Funke's testimony that approximately 1,200 houses would be <br />unable to be built in River Road/Santa Clara as a result of SB 417. Mr. Nystrom said he thought the intent <br />was to project the number of units on properties of a certain size that could be divided. He said under the <br />next statutes, there would be properties in River Road/Santa Clara that might not be eligible for annexation, <br />but it would take more extensive research to estimate the impact in terms of housing units. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman stated that Lane County had delegated authority for decisions to the Boundary Commission <br />and asked if it was necessary for the County to delegate that authority to the City because of the new <br />statutes. Ms. Jerome pointed out that the State created the Boundary Commission, not Lane County, and <br />with the removal of the Boundary Commission, decisions reverted along jurisdictional lines to the municipal <br />government with authority over an area. She said the UGB was a dividing line; outside of the UGB, Lane <br />County was the decision-maker. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman felt that roles were clear when there was a Boundary Commission and without a commission <br />there should be a declaration or resolution from the County concurring that the City had the authority to <br />make decisions, otherwise the City was vulnerable legally. She asked staff to research that issue. Ms. <br />Jerome replied that she had confirmed with the County's legal counsel that there were questions regarding <br />cities' rights to entertain applications to annex; extra-territorial extensions were more difficult to parse out <br />and that was being researched in conjunction with other cities in Lane County. She said that any concerns <br />that arose would be related to the council. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman advocated for 750 feet for notification, inclusion of neighborhood organizations in all mailings <br />and postings on the site. She was also in favor of batching public hearings. Referring to Table 9.7820, <br />Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones, she asked if there were differences in permitted uses and densities <br />between the Eugene zones and urbanizable land zones. Mr. Nystrom replied that within the UGB, <br />equivalent zoning districts were identical. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman indicated she would submit the rest of her questions in writing. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 19, 2007 Page 4 <br /> Public Hearing <br />