12/21/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

standards under which annexations should be evaluated with respect e to Statewide Goals and to request the Council to concur and support the draft rule. It was noted that no annexations privately initiated July 1 had been reviewed by the Planning Commission or the City Council. All have been held pending resolution of the questions. There are ten such annexations in the mill at the present time. Mr. Saul further com- mented that Senate Bill 570 says annexations shall be reviewed in accordance with the Statewide Goals. Since adopted, there have been many suggestions as to what goals might be applicable to the review of annexations. At a meeting in November, LCDC discussed the whole issue of annexations and review under Statewide Goals and directed their staff to prepare a draft rule to consider in January. It represents a significant advancement and clarification in the overall questions associated with annexation review. It sets forth the basic , factors to be considered within the context of Statewide Goals and provides a realistic basis for review. Mr. Saul said that IV (8) particularly applies. He would hope Council would support that pro- vision which states that "the requirements of Goal No.3 (Agriculture) and Goal No. 14 (Urbanization) shall not apply to annexation of lands if the local government or local government boundary commission finds that adequate public facilities and services can be reasonably made available; and: (1) the lands are irrevocably committed to urban use; or (2) the lands are needed for an urban use and circumstances exist which make it clear that the lands in question will be within an urban e growth boundary when the boundary is adopted in accordance with the Goals. A suggested process for making this finding is to include docu- mentation of the factors required by Goal 14 for conversion of rural to urbanizable land." Mr. Saul said that if, in the review of any particular annexation one goal is isolated as being the only one to be considered, a distorted picture will be arrived at. This proposed rule clarifies that and balances many important factors. He feels the rule should be supported because it is entirely consistent with Eugene's policy, with Statewide Goals and Guidelines, and with the fundamental notion as to the role of cities. Mr. Delay referred to the sentence reading, "A suggested process for making this finding is to include documentation of the factors required by Goal 14 for conversion of rural to urbanizable land". He wondered what that represents to the City of Eugene. Mr. Saul felt the factors referred to are not slipshod. He said there is a difference in the effort required in the exception process and the effort required to document Goal 14 conversion. Mr. Delay wondered if all lands inside the existing General Plan Urban Service Boundary were capable of being demonstrated to meet the requirements of this section, and Mr. Saul said that is not necessarily an absolute, but generally would be a factor to be considered. e CJ33 12121/77 --3