HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1: Ordinance Concerning the Transition of Annexation Procedures
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Concerning Annexation, Extra-Territorial Water and
Sewer Extensions, and Public Service District Withdrawal Procedures; Amending
Sections 2.212, 9.7055, 9.7205, and 9.8035 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing
Existing Sections 9.7800 to 9.7885 of that Code; Adding New Sections 9.7800, through
9.7835 and Sections 9.8115 through 9.8121 to that Code; Declaring an Emergency; and
Providing an Effective Date
Meeting Date: November 19, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 1
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-8385
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council will be holding a public hearing on an ordinance that will establish the procedures for
annexation applications within Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
BACKGROUND
Recent passage of Senate Bill (SB) 417 abolishes the Boundary Commission, which currently serves as
the responsible governmental body for review of annexation requests and extra-territorial extensions
within Lane County. The bill transfers those responsibilities to the local governments effective January
1, 2008. The proposed ordinance will serve as the means to implement this new state legislation. In
order for this ordinance to go into effect by January 1, 2008, the City Council is scheduled to hold a
public hearing on November 19, 2007, with final action scheduled on December 10, 2007.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the draft ordinance on October 16, 2007, and on
October 29, 2007, recommended approval of the ordinance. The Planning Commission also
recommended specific modifications to the ordinance which are outlined in Attachment C. Staff has
incorporated the non-substantive Planning Commission recommendations into the draft ordinance
provided with this (November 19, 2007) council packet. The Planning Commission’s substantive
recommendations are included in the “comment” portions of the draft ordinance provided with this
packet (see Attachment A). The City Attorney’s office has also corrected typographical or reference
errors in this revised draft ordinance.
Background material on the key elements of this ordinance, as well as evidence and testimony provided
to the Planning Commission are attached to this Agenda Item Summary. A full copy of the October 29,
2007, Planning Commission packet will also be available for review in the City Council Office.
The City Council held a work session on this item on October 31, 2007, which provided an opportunity
for an overview of the draft ordinance. The City Council provided feedback on the proposal including
specific suggestions on potential modifications to the ordinance. In order to facilitate council action on
F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071119\S0711191.doc
the draft ordinance by December 10, 2007, staff has prepared a memorandum (see Attachment B) which
provides responses to the City Council’s comments, including potential options that could be
considered. Following the close of the public hearing, staff encourages City Council direction, to the
extent possible, on any possible modifications which should be considered at the December 10, 2007
meeting.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
SB 417 requires the City of Eugene to assume responsibility for processing annexation requests within
its UGB. The proposed ordinance establishes the provisions to implement this state mandate.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council may consider the following options:
1. Approve the proposed ordinance.
2. Approve the proposed ordinance with modifications as recommended by the Planning Commission.
3. Approved the proposed ordinance with specific modifications as determined by the City Council.
4. Deny the proposed ordinance.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance with the recommended
modifications suggested by the Planning Commission.
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is proposed as this is scheduled for a public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Revised Draft Ordinance and findings
B. Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council, dated November 8, 2007
C. Planning Commission recommended modifications to the draft ordinance
D. Agenda Item Summary to the Planning Commission, dated October 29, 2007
E. City Council Resolutions
F. Public Testimony, including that received by the Planning Commission
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom
Telephone: 541/682-8385
Staff E-Mail: steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us
F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071119\S0711191.doc
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING ANNEXATION, EXTRA-
TERRITORIAL WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS, AND
PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURES;
AMENDING SECTIONS 2.212, 9.7055, 9.7205, AND 9.8035
OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; REPEALING EXISTING
SECTIONS 9.7800 TO 9.7885 OF THAT CODE; ADDING NEW
SECTIONS 9.7800, THROUGH 9.7835 AND SECTIONS
9.8115 THROUGH 9.8121 TO THAT CODE; DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Section 2.212 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
2.212 Extraterritorial Water and Sewer Service Extensions.
The city manager
or the manager's designee is hereby authorized to receive on behalf of the
city requests for extraterritorial water service extensions, sewer service
extensions, or provision of water or sewer service to special service districts.
Such requests shall be accompanied by the application fee established by
the city manager as provided by section 2.020 of this code, and shall be
processed and approved or denied as provided in section 9.8115 to
9.8121 of this code. [The city manager, or the manager's designee, shall
submit such requests to the Lane County Boundary Commission, together
with a favorable recommendation by city only if the city manager, or the
manager's designee, finds that the extension of service as proposed would
be consistent in all respects with adopted resolutions, policies, plans and
ordinances.
This section amends the existing Code provision regarding requests to provide city
[Comment:
water or sewer service outside of its city limits. The existing Code provision at EC 2.212 is
amended to authorize the City to approve/deny, rather than recommending approval/denial to
Boundary Commission.]
Section 2.
The definition of “Owner” set forth in Section 9.0500 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
9.0500 Definitions.
As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise,
the following words and phrases mean:
Ordinance -
1
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
Owner.
An individual, association, partnership, or corporation having legal or
equitable title to land other than legal title held only for purpose of security. For the
purpose of notice, the owner may be determined using the latest Lane County
assessment roll. For purposes of Annexation Application Procedures and
Criteria (EC 9.7800 through 9.7835), See definition at EC 9.7805.
Section 3.
The entry for “Annexations” in the Table set forth in Section 9.7055 of
the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended, and a new entry for “Extra-Territorial Extension of
Water or Sewer Service” is added in alphabetical order thereto, to provide:
9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities.
Table 9.7055 Applications and Review
Authorities, lists applications and the review authorities for the decision and the
appeal of the decision.
Table 9.7055 Applications and Review Authorities
R = Recommendation, D = Decision Maker, A = Appeal Review Authority
ApplicationTypePlanning Hearings Historic Planning City
DirectorOfficialReview CommissionCouncil
Board
D
Annexations (See EC 9.7800)
Extra-Territorial Extension of
Water or Sewer Service II D A
Table 9.7055 is amended to reflect the approval procedures (described in EC 9.7820
[Comment:
and 9.8121) for annexations and extra-territorial extensions. If the procedures are modified by
Council, Staff will revise Table 9.7055 to reflect the modifications.]
Section 4.
Table 9.7205 set forth in Section 9.7205 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended by adding an entry for “Extra-Territorial Extension of Water and Sewer
Service” in alphabetical order therein, to provide:
9.7205 Type II Application Requirements and Criteria Reference.
The following
applications are reviewed under the Type II review process according to the
requirements and criteria set forth for each application as reflected in the beginning
reference column in Table 9.7205:
Table 9.7205 Type II Application Requirements and Criteria
Type II ApplicationsBeginning Reference
Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service EC 9.8115
Ordinance -
2
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
Table 9.7205 is amended to reflect the approval procedure for extra-territorial
[Comment:
extensions as described in EC 9.8121. If Council modifies the procedure, this amendment may be
unnecessary.]
Section 5.
The current sections 9.7800 through 9.7885 of the Eugene Code, 1971
are repealed, and the following caption, and Sections 9.7800, 9.7805, 9.7810, 9.7815,
9.7820, 9.7825, 9.7830 and 9.7835 are added to the Eugene Code, 1971, to provide:
ANNEXATION APPLICATION PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA
9.7800 Annexation – Purpose. The provisions of EC 9.7800 – 9.7835 are intended to
implement state law , the Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Plan by
providing procedures for the review of proposals to annex land to the city and
the subsequent withdrawal of such land from public service districts.
Based on comments from the 10/31/07 Council meeting, a reference to state laws, the
[Comment:
Statewide Planning Goals and the Metro Plan has been added. Council may further revise this
section without limitation. Note, however, that (per EC 9.0050) “Purpose Sections” are intended to
provide general explanatory information concerning subsequent code sections. The Purpose section
will not constitute an approval criterion or be used to interpret subsequent sections.]
9.7805 Annexation – Applicability.
(1) The provisions of EC 9.7800 - 9.7835 apply to annexation applications for
which there is owner and elector consent as described in EC 9.7810.
Other annexation proposals permitted by state law shall be processed as
provided in state law.
(2) For purposes of EC 9.7800 through 9.7835:
(a) An “owner” is a legal owner of record or, where there is a recorded
land sale contract which is in force, a purchaser under the land sale
contract.
(b) An “elector” is an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article
II, of the Oregon Constitution.
This section describes which forms of annexation requests are subject to this
[Comment:
ordinance. These definitions are from ORS 222 and cannot be changed. Council may identify
additional items to be defined.]
9.7810 Annexation – Application Requirements. An application for annexation under
the provisions of EC 9.7800 – 9.7835 may be initiated by motion of the city
council or by the filing of an application for an annexation. In addition to the
Ordinance -
3
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
provisions in EC 9.7010 Application Filing, an application for annexation shall
include the following:
(1) A list of all owners, including partial owners, of land in the area proposed
for annexation, indicating for each owner:
(a) The affected tax lot(s), with the township, section and range
numbers of the affected tax lots identified;
(b) The street address(es) of the affected land as recorded on county
assessment and tax rolls;
(c) The electors residing on the land, if any.
(2) Consent to Annex forms that are completed and signed by:
(a) All of the owners of land in the area proposed for annexation; and
(b) Not less than fifty percent of the electors, if any, residing on the land
proposed for annexation.
(3) Instead of the Consent to Annex forms as described in subsection (2)
above, an application may include Consent to Annex forms that are
completed and signed in accordance with state law, by:
(a) More than fifty percent of the owners of the land in the area
proposed for annexation, who also own more than fifty percent of
the land in the area proposed for annexation and of real property
therein representing more than fifty percent of the assessed value of
all the real property in the area proposed for annexation; or
(b) More than fifty percent of the electors registered in the area that is
proposed for annexation and the owners of more than fifty percent
of the land in that area proposed for annexation.
(4) In lieu of a Consent to Annex form described in sections (2) or (3) above,
an owner’s consent may be indicated on a previously executed, and still
valid, annexation agreement consenting to the annexation of the subject
land.
(5) Verification of Property Owners form signed by the Lane County
Department of Assessment and Taxation.
(6) A Certificate of Electors form signed by the Lane County Elections/Voter
Registration Department.
(7) A legal description of the land proposed for annexation prepared by a
registered land surveyor consistent with ORS 308.225.
(8) A county assessor’s cadastral map of the land proposed for annexation.
(9) A list of the public service districts presently providing services to the
land proposed for annexation (See EC 9.7835).
(10) A written narrative addressing the proposal’s consistency with the
approval criteria set out at EC 9.7825.
EC 9.7810 specifies the minimum level of materials that must be submitted with an
[Comment:
annexation request, including the required level of consent, as well as specific property information.
The allowance for city-initiated annexations is drawn from Council Resolution 4358 (10/31/07
Council packet, page 39). The application requirements listed in 9.7810 are those that staff
believes necessary to evaluate an application based on the criteria at 9.7825. State law does not
directly prescribe what materials an applicant must submit. If Council believes additional materials
are needed to address the approval criteria, additional requirements may be added.
EC 9.7810(2) and (3) set out the three different types of consensual annexation applications that
the City is required by state law to consider. These sections use statutory terminology so that the
Ordinance -
4
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
City can rely on court-established interpretations of that terminology in applying the code.
Therefore, these sections should not be revised.
EC 9.7810(2) (per ORS 222.125) requires:
1) The consent of all owners of land in the area proposed for annexation (whether they
occupy the land or not); and
2) The consent of no less than 50% of the registered voters residing in that area (this
would include any owner/occupants, renters and other occupants who are registered to
vote in Oregon).
EC 9.7810(3)(a) (per ORS 222.170(1)) requires:
1) The consent of more than 50% of the owners of land in the area property for
annexation (whether they occupy the land, or not); and
2) A demonstration that the consenting owners described in 1) own more than 50% of the
land in the area proposed for annexation; and
3) A demonstration that the consenting owners described in 1) own real property in the
area proposed for annexation that represents more than 50% of the assessed value of
all the real property proposed for annexation.
EC 9.7810(3)(b) (per ORS 222.170(2)) requires:
1) The consent of more than 50% of voters registered in the area proposed to be annexed
(this would include any owner/occupants, renters and other occupants who are
registered to vote in the area to be annexed); and
2) The consent of owners of more than 50% of the land in the area proposed for
annexation (whether they occupy the land, or not).
EC 9.7810(5)&(6) reference forms that an applicant must fill out and submit. The forms will be the
same basic forms now required by the Boundary Commission.
EC 9.7810 has been revised to omit the requirement for a Measure 37 waiver. With the passage of
Measure 49, it is no longer needed.]
9.7815 Annexation – City Modification of Application. At any time prior to council
action, and with notice consistent with EC 9.7820, the city may modify an
application to include contiguous road right-of-way or to include other
contiguous public land.
The purpose of this section is to identify the Council’s current policy that enables the
[Comment:
City to add public property or right-of-way to an application. This section is based on policy
direction in Council Resolution 4903 adopted 4/07 (10/31/07 Council packet, page 34) and
Resolution 4358 adopted 1/93 (10/31/07 Council packet, page 39). Council could add to this section
more of the detail contained in Resolution 4358, such as Council’s policy to refrain from such an
add-on if it would create an island in the River Road/Santa Clara area. However, the Council can
continue to follow such policy without adding it to the ordinance.]
Ordinance -
5
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
9.7820 Annexation – Procedures.
(1) For an application submitted pursuant to EC 9.7810(2):
(a) No public hearing is required.
(b) The planning director shall forward to the city council a written
recommendation based on the approval criteria in EC 9.7825 that the
application be approved, modified and approved, or denied. In
addition, the planning director may recommend that the council
defer action on the matter until after the council holds a public
hearing.
(c) At least 10 days prior to the date the council considers the planning
director’s recommendation, notice of the application that contains
the street address or other easily understood geographical
reference to the property, the planning director’s recommendation,
and the date and time the council will consider the recommendation
shall be mailed to:
1. The applicant;
2. Owners and occupants of properties located within 100 feet of
the perimeter of the subject property; and
3. The neighborhood group or community organization officially
recognized by the city council that includes the area of the
subject property.
(d) The city council may:
1. Adopt a resolution approving, modifying and approving, or
denying the application for annexation; or
2. Vote to defer action on such a resolution until after it holds a
public hearing on the proposed annexation.
(e) When the city council elects to hold a public hearing, the
procedures that apply are those in (2)(d) below.
(2) For an application submitted pursuant to EC 9.7810(3), or an application
described in EC 9.7820(1)(c), above:
(a) A public hearing is required.
(b) The city council shall set a date, time and place for it to conduct a
hearing to consider the application.
(c) The planning director shall forward to the city council a written
recommendation based on the approval criteria in EC 9.7825 that the
application be approved, modified and approved, or denied.
(d) Notice of the public hearing shall be:
1. Mailed at least 14 days prior to the public hearing to those
listed in subsection (1)(c) above;
2. Published in a local newspaper with general circulation once
each week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing date;
and
3. Posted in four public places in the city for two successive
weeks prior to the hearing date. One of the postings shall be
located within the boundaries of the affected neighborhood
organization(s), if applicable.
(e) The city council may adopt a resolution approving, modifying and
approving, or denying the application for annexation.
(3) Land annexed to the city according to the procedures in EC 9.7800 –
9.7835 shall be automatically rezoned as of the effective date of the
Ordinance -
6
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
annexation from Lane County land zones and zoning overlays to
equivalent Eugene zones and overlay zones as shown in Table 9.7820
Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones. For purposes of this section, land
that is also within an area identified as a Nodal Development Area on the
Metro Plan Diagram shall be automatically included in the Eugene /ND
Nodal Development Overlay Zone. The official city zoning map shall be
amended to reflect the change of zone.
Table 9.7820 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones
Urbanizable Land Zones Eugene Zones
AG/UL Agricultural AG Agricultural
PL/UL Public Land PL Public Land
R-1/UL Low-Density Residential R-1 Low Density Residential
R-2/UL Medium-Density Residential R-2 Medium Density Residential
GO/UL General Office GO General Office
C-1/UL Neighborhood Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2/UL Community Commercial C-2 Community Commercial
I-2/UL Light-Medium Industrial I-2 Light-Medium Industrial
I-3/UL Heavy Industrial I-3 Heavy Industrial
Urbanizable Land Zoning Overlay Eugene Overlay Zones
/SR Site Review /SR Site Review
/CAS Commercial Airport Safety /CAS Commercial Airport Safety
/WR Water Resources Conservation /WR Water Resources Conservation
Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
(4) The city will not deem an application complete for a change in the zoning
of land proposed for annexation until the annexation has been approved
by the city.
(5) Withdrawals of annexed land from a public service district serving the
land shall be processed as provided in EC 9.7835.
9.7820 establishes the review procedures and public notice requirements for
[Comment:
annexation requests. This section is drafted to closely implement ORS 222 which allows the city to
act on some types of annexation applications without a hearing, but which requires a hearing prior
to action on other types of annexation applications. Pursuant to state law, the Council must make
the final decision on all annexation applications.
9.7820(1) - process for annexation applications not requiring a public hearing per ORS 222.125.
Statutes do not require any notice, hearing or other procedures prior to Council action on this type
of application. Council has discretion to require any level of notice, hearing or other procedures.
Draft provides for notice and an optional hearing (See 9.7820(1)(c)&(d)). Planning Commission
recommends: notice be increased to 30 days (instead of 10 days) and to 500 feet (instead of 100
feet), adoption of standards for determining when a hearing will be held. In response to Councilor
comments, See “Options 2 and 3,” included in this 11/19/07 Council packet as possible revisions.
9.7820(2) - process for those annexation applications that require a hearing per ORS 222.170 and
for those applications that Council refers to a hearing under 9.7820(1). The procedural
Ordinance -
7
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
requirements set out in the draft are basically the minimum allowed by state law. Council has
discretion to require higher level of notice, hearing or other procedures. Planning Commission
recommends notice be increased to 30 days (instead of 14 days).
9.7820(2)(d) - Language has been added to require at least one of the public places be in the
neighborhood of the area proposed for annexation at Planning Commission’s request.
9.7820(3) – language carried over from existing code provisions describing city zones to be applied
to annexed land, with updates to Table. See existing EC 9.7810.]
9.7825 Annexation – Approval Criteria. The city council shall approve, modify and
approve, or deny a proposed annexation based on the application’s
consistency with the following:
(1) The land proposed to be annexed is within the city’s urban growth
boundary and is:
(a) Contiguous to the city limits; or
(b) Separated from the city only by a public right of way or a stream,
bay, lake or other body of water.
(2) The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the
Metro Plan and in any applicable refinement plans.
(3) The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum
level of key urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can
be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
This section establishes the criteria which shall serve as the basis for the City Council’s
[Comment:
decision on each annexation request. EC 9.7825(1)(a)&(b) are required by state law (ORS 222.111);
Council may not substantively change or remove these two approval criteria. For consistency with
adopted Council policies, 9.7825(2) is taken from Council Resolution 4358 (10/31/07 Council packet,
page 39) and from Metro Plan Growth Management Policy 8.b. 9.7825(3) is taken from Metro Plan
Policy 8.a. Council could change its policy direction with respect to these two criteria and/or add
criteria.]
9.7830 Annexation – Effective Date and Notice of Approved Annexation.
(1) Effective Date. The effective date of an approved annexation shall be set
in accordance with state law.
(2) Notice of Approved Annexation.
(a) Not later than 10 working days after the passage of a resolution
approving an annexation, the city shall:
1. Send by certified mail a notice to public utilities (as defined in
ORS 757.005), electric cooperatives and telecommunications
carriers (as defined in ORS 133.721) operating within the city.
The notice shall include:
a. Each site address to be annexed as recorded on county
assessment and tax rolls;
b. A legal description and map of the proposed boundary
change; and
c. A copy of the resolution approving the annexation.
Ordinance -
8
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
2. Mail a notice of the annexation to the Secretary of State that
includes a copy of the resolution approving the annexation and
a copy of the statement(s) of consent.
(b) Within 20 days from the passage of a resolution approving an
annexation, the city shall mail a notice of the annexation to the
county clerk, county assessor, and owners and electors in the
annexed area. The notice shall include a legal description of the
new city boundaries.
(c) If the effective date of an annexation is more than one year after the
city passes the resolution approving it, the city shall mail a notice of
the annexation to the Lane County clerk not sooner than 120 days
and not later than 90 days prior to the effective date of the
annexation.
9.7830 describes when an annexation decision becomes effective and the related
[Comment:
noticing that is required. This language is drawn from numerous statutory requirements. Council
lacks discretion to make any substantive changes to the provisions above, but Council could include
additional post-approval notice requirements if desired.]
9.7835 Annexation – Withdrawal from Public Service Districts Following Annexation.
(1) Council Public Hearing on Withdrawal. Generally on an annual basis, the
city council shall set a date, time and place for it to conduct a hearing to
consider an ordinance to withdraw annexed land from the following
public service districts serving that land:
(a) A rural fire protection district;
(b) A water district, including a domestic water supply corporation;
(c) A park and recreation district;
(d) A highway lighting district;
(e) A county service district;
(f) A special road district;
(g) A road assessment district; or
(h) A sanitary district or authority.
(2) Notice of Public Hearing. Notice of the hearing, including the date, time,
place and purpose of the hearing shall be:
(a) Published in a local newspaper with general circulation once each
week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing date;
(b) Posted in four public places in the city for two successive weeks
prior to the hearing date; and
(c) Mailed to the affected public service districts.
(3) Criteria. In determining whether to withdraw the land, the city council
shall determine whether the withdrawal is in the best interest of the city.
(4) Effective Date. The effective date of the withdrawal shall be set in
accordance with state law.
(5) Notice of Withdrawal. Not later than March 31 of the tax assessment year
to which the withdrawal of land applies, the city shall mail notice to the
County Assessor and Department of Revenue including the legal
description of the boundary change and an accurate map showing the
change, prepared consistent with ORS 308.225.
Ordinance -
9
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
This application serves as the tool to formally withdraw annexed properties from rural
[Comment:
service districts. The City Council currently reviews these requests. Only minimal change is
proposed in response to state statutes. Per Planning Commission recommendation, 9.7835(2)(c) has
been added to require a notice be mailed to the affected public service district. 9.7835 is drawn
completely from numerous statutory requirements that Council may not substantively change.
However, Council could include additional notice under (2) or additional criteria under (3).]
Section 6.
Section 9.8035 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
9.8035 Annexation Application Requirements and Criteria.
The provisions for
processing annexation applications are found in EC 9.7800 through [9.7885] 9.7835,
Annexation Application Procedures and Criteria.
Section 7.
The following caption, and Sections 9.8115 – 9.8121 are added to the
Eugene Code, 1971, to provide:
EXTRA-TERRITORIAL EXTENSION OF WATER OR SEWER SERVICE
There are no governing state statutes for the following provisions, but Council policies
[Comment:
in Resolution 2643 (10/31/07 Council packet, pages 41-47) set out Council policies concerning extra-
territorial extensions. In the past, those policies informed whether the City would recommend
approval to the Boundary Commission.]
9.8115 Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service – Purpose. Sections
9.8115 through 9.8121 govern the approval of requests that the city extend
water service or sewer service to serve property located outside of the city
limits. These regulations are intended to accomplish the orderly development
of land within the urban growth boundary, ensure the adequate provision or
public facilities and services, protect the public health and safety of the
community and enable development to occur consistent with applicable
provisions of the Metro Plan.
Council may revise this section without limitation. Note, however, that (per EC 9.0050)
[Comment:
“Purpose Sections” are intended to provide general explanatory information concerning subsequent
code sections. The purpose section will not constitute an approval criterion or be used to interpret
subsequent sections.]
9.8117 Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service – Applicability. The
provisions of EC 9.8115 through 9.8121 apply to applications requesting the
extension of water service or sewer service to serve property located outside
of the city limits.
9.8119 Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service – Application
Requirements. In addition to the provisions of EC 9.7010 Application Filing, an
Ordinance -
10
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
application for extra-territorial extension of water or sewer service shall
include the following:
(1) A list of all tax lots proposed to be served, including street addresses;
(2) The proposed number of service connections and their locations;
(3) A written narrative addressing the proposal’s consistency with the
approval criteria in EC 9.8121.
Neither state law or existing city policies prescribe what materials an applicant must
[Comment:
submit. The items listed in 9.8119 are those that staff believes necessary to evaluate an
application based on the criteria at 9.8121. If Council believes additional materials are needed to
address the approval criteria, additional requirements may be added.]
9.8121 Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service – Approval Criteria. The
planning director shall consider an application for extra-territorial extension of
water or sewer service in accordance with the Type II application procedures
contained in EC 9.7200 through 9.7230. The planning director shall approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the application based on compliance with the
following criteria:
(1) The property proposed for service is located within the city’s urban
growth boundary, is located within the property boundaries of the Mahlon
Sweet Airport, or, for purposes of water extension only, Lane Community
College;
(2) Annexation of the property proposed to be served is currently not
possible due to the inability to meet the criteria for annexation as set
forth in EC 9.7825;
(3) The applicant has entered into an annexation agreement pertaining to the
property proposed to be served or will enter into an annexation
agreement as a condition of approval;
(4) The property proposed for service is not vacant;
(5) The provision of service will not prolong uses which are nonconforming
uses under the Eugene Code, 1971;
(6) In the case of an application for extension of water service, the property
to be served is connected with an approved means of sewage disposal;
(7) The proposed extension is consistent with adopted resolutions, policies,
plans and ordinances concerning extra-territorial extensions; and
(8) Even if a proposed extension is inconsistent with the criteria above, the
city may approve an extra-territorial extension of water or sewer service:
(a) Where a communicable disease hazard exists and the extension is
the only practical remedy; or
(b) To property within a dissolved water district within which EWEB is
providing service to some properties.
This section establishes the criteria which the City will use as the basis for rendering
[Comment:
decisions for extra-territorial extensions. To ensure consistency with adopted Council policies, the
approval criteria in 9.8121 are taken from Council Resolution 2643 (10/31/07 Council packet, pages
43-47), and Metro Plan Growth Management policies 21 and 22. In the past, those policies informed
whether the City would recommend approval to the Boundary Commission. Council could change its
policy direction with respect to these criteria and/or add criteria.]
Ordinance -
11
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
Section 8.
The legislative findings attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted in
support of this Ordinance.
Section 9.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, may correct any reference errors contained herein, or in other provisions
of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added, amended, or repealed herein. The
City Recorder is specifically authorized to correct references to the Lane County Local
Government Boundary Commission.
Section 10.
The State Legislature has abolished the Lane County Local
Government Boundary Commission, effective January 1, 2008. The City’s ability to
accept and process annexation applications serves an important public purpose, and it
is therefore necessary that the provisions contained in this Ordinance establishing
procedures for the City to effect annexations and withdrawals of territory from public
service districts become effective on January 1, 2008, which is less than 30 days from
its date of adoption.
Section 11.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Eugene Charter of
2002, with the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the City Council, this
Ordinance shall become effective on January 1, 2008.
Section 12.
Notwithstanding the effective date of this Ordinance as provided in
Section 10, in order to ensure the City’s ability to accept and process annexation
applications on January 1, 2008, the City Manager is specifically authorized to establish
fees necessary for implementation of the provisions contained herein, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 2.020 of the Eugene Code, 1971, to become effective on
January 1, 2008.
Ordinance -
12
ATTACHMENT A
11/19/07 – V-6
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ____________, 2007 ____ day of ______________, 2007
___________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance -
13
ATTACHMENT B
Planning &
Development
Planning
City of Eugene
th
99 W. 10 Avenue
Eugene, Oregon
97401
(541) 682-5481
(541) 682-5572 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
M
EMORANDUM
Date:
November 8, 2007
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Steve Nystrom, 682-8385
Principal Planner
Subject:
Transition of Annexation Procedures
The City Council held a work session on October 31, 2007, in preparation for the public hearing
on a proposed ordinance which will establish annexation procedures for the City of Eugene. At
the work session, the City Council provided feedback on certain elements or concepts of the
ordinance. While these comments did not necessarily represent formal direction by the council,
staff has provided a response to comments, in the hopes that this information will facilitate
specific motions from the council.
Format
Councilors Bettman and Pryor offered suggestions on the format of the ordinance to enable more
effective review by the council, as well as the public. They include the following elements:
Provide commentary or some form of explanation which can help the layperson better
?
understand the specific sections of the draft ordinance.
Identify which elements of the ordinance are non-discretionary (required by state statute)
?
vs. discretionary. In other words, what aspects of the ordinance can the council modify
and what elements are fixed?
In response to these comments, staff has provided a revised version of the ordinance which
incorporates these suggestions. Below each major section of the draft ordinance is a
commentary section labeled “Comment” which provides an explanation of the intent of that
section, and in some cases, the origin of the requirement. The draft ordinance also identifies
Page 1 of 8
those areas driven by state statute or adopted council policy, as well as those areas which the
council has full discretion to modify.
Annexation Review Process
Councilor Bettman commented on the proposed 2-track process for annexations. In the proposed
ordinance, the council is not required to (but may opt to) hold a hearing before acting on
1
applications submitted with the consent described at proposed EC 9.7810(2). The council is
required to hold a hearing before acting on applications submitted with the consent described at
2
proposed EC 9.7810(3)(a) or (3)(b). This approach is consistent with the state statutes that now
govern annexations in Eugene (ORS 222). Councilor Bettman questioned whether it might be
simpler to have public hearings for all applications (likely in some batched approach) rather than
having to determine which applications should be approved with or without a hearing. In the
event there is interest in considering alternative approaches, staff has provided some options to
consider:
Option 1: Maintain 2-track process as proposed
. Allows council the discretion to forego a
hearing when one is not required by state law, or to hold a hearing when the proposal requires
more discussion or evaluation through a public hearing process.
Advantages: Maximizes flexibility to the council. Allows council to devote more substantial
time to complex requests, while being efficient with routine requests. Responsive to public
input requests. Manageable administrative impact to staff.
Disadvantages: Could create some redundancy for applicants and council (applications that are
pulled for public hearings will be in front of council twice). May create difficult decisions for
council on when, and under what circumstances to require public hearings.
Option 2: Require a public hearing process for all annexations
. Create a one track process
by requiring all annexations to be reviewed through a public hearing process.
Advantages: Simplifies role of the council by eliminating a decision point regarding whether to
require a public hearing or not. Eliminates multiple step process for those applications which
would require a public hearing under the 2-track process. Maximizes opportunity for public
input.
Disadvantages: Eliminates flexibility for the council to choose appropriate decision path.
Would likely increase time spent per application by council and staff as public hearing process is
more involved. May create false expectations with the public about the scope of the public
hearing (e.g. site specific annexation issues vs. broader policy discussion).
For council’s reference, staff has prepared a rewritten draft of EC 9.7820 to carry out Option 2
Option 2 -- REWRITE OF EC 9.7820 TO PROVIDE FOR
attached to this memo as “
HEARING ON ALL ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS
.”
1
State law does not require a hearing on applications described in ORS 222.125, implemented at proposed EC
9.7810(2).
2
State law requires the City Council to hold a hearing for any application described in ORS 222.170, implemented
at proposed EC 9.7810(3).
Page 2 of 8
Option 3: Modified 2-track process
. Create a hybrid approach that maintains the flexibility of
a 2-track process, with some clearer boundaries. Instead of having the council make a case-by-
case determination when a hearing is optional, as to whether a hearing should be held on a
double-majority application, establish a means to “front-load” this step by creating standards that
will dictate whether such an application will go to a hearing. Options could include the
following:
a) Require a public hearing for those requests which involve a street annexation or involve
property over five acres in size. These factors would likely account for the vast majority of
community concern, or;
b) Provide an opportunity for those receiving public notice to request a public hearing. If
none requested, council would act on resolutions.
Advantages: Maintains flexibility for council. Maintains opportunity for public input on
potentially controversial requests, while maintaining efficiencies for council and staff. Allows
sorting of applications to happen up front, thereby creating a one-step process at council.
Disadvantages: May not capture all applications of concern. Conversely, this option could
require public hearings when public concern is minimal. In the case of option (b), it could
involve redundancies at least with notification and other administrative functions.
For council’s reference, staff has prepared a rewritten draft of EC 9.7820 to carry out Option 3
Option 3 -- REWRITE OF EC 9.7820 TO PROVIDE FOR
attached to this memo as “
HEARING ON CERTAIN ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS
.” The standards to be used in
determining whether to hold a hearing are left blank in the document and would be filled in, as
council directs.
Extra-territorial Extension Review Process
Councilor Bettman questioned whether a Type II process (approval by the Planning Director)
was appropriate. Staff has looked at alternatives to this process. The other forms of review
procedures currently in the land use code (Type III, IV and V) are not structured or legally able
to accommodate this review. Therefore, staff identifies two options for council consideration:
Option 1: Maintain the Type II process as proposed in the draft ordinance
. The Planning
Director would make the decision on extra-territorial extensions, based on adopted City Council
policies. That decision would be appealable to the Hearings Official.
Advantages: Creates manageable process for staff. Adopted council policies will provide
rigorous criteria for review which staff has been utilizing in current process with Boundary
Commission. Given limited number of applications, appropriate checks and balances appear to
be in place. Provides local appeal process.
Disadvantages: Although infrequent, there could be issues of council interest associated with
some applications. Council will not have the opportunity to weigh in.
Option 2: Require a quasi-judicial public hearing process with the City Council
. All extra-
territorial extension requests would be decided by the City Council through a public hearing
process. A provision within this ordinance would be added that requires a public hearing before
the City Council, according to a quasi-judicial land use process. There is no code process that
Page 3 of 8
neatly fits a proposal where council would hold the initial evidentiary quasi-judicial land use
hearing. The Type IV Procedures could be used, which provide for a Planning Commission
hearing and recommendation prior to council consideration. However, if council was inclined to
pursue Option 2, staff would recommend an approach consistent with annexations, which
requires the City Council to be the sole review body.
Advantages: Ensures that council is decision maker, especially for those requests that may
involve more significant issues. Additional process may provide a disincentive for questionable
requests. Provides greater opportunity for public input.
Disadvantages: Creates more impact on council (and if Type IV procedures are used, on
Planning Commission) agendas. May create substantial process for non-controversial requests.
Increases administrative impact to staff.
Minor Edits
Councilor Bettman asked that the following edits be considered to clarify the ordinance:
Define “extra-territorial” and consider using a term other than “territory” throughout the
?
ordinance.
Provide alternative language for the term “within the community,” as found in EC
?
9.8115; Extra-territorial Extension of Water or Sere Service – Purpose.
Add language to the Purpose Section for Annexations (EC 9.7800) to indicate that these
?
procedures implement the policies of the Metro Plan and are consistent with statewide
planning goals.
The revised draft ordinance (Version - 6) has been revised to address these items.
Although staff recognize that following the public hearing, the City Council may identify
additional items for consideration, staff recommends the council weigh these options, and
provide appropriate direction in advance of the December 10, 2007 meeting.
If you have further questions, please contact Steve Nystrom, Principal Planner at 682-8385 or by
email at Steven.A.Nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us.
Attachments
1. Optional code language regarding EC 9.7820
Page 4 of 8
Option 2 -- REWRITE OF EC 9.7820 TO PROVIDE FOR HEARING ON
ALL ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS
9.7820 Annexation – Procedures.
(1) For an application submitted pursuant to EC 9.7810:
(a) The city council shall set a date, time and place for it to conduct a
hearing to consider the application.
(b) The planning director shall forward to the city council a written
recommendation based on the approval criteria in EC 9.7825 that the
application be approved, modified and approved, or denied.
(c) Notice of the public hearing shall be:
1. Mailed at least 14 days prior to the public hearing to:
a. The applicant;
b. Owners and occupants of properties located within 100
feet of the perimeter of the subject property; and
c. The neighborhood group or community organization
officially recognized by the city council that includes the
area of the subject property.
2. Published in a local newspaper with general circulation once
each week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing date;
and
3. Posted in four public places in the city for two successive
weeks prior to the hearing date. One of the posting shall be
located within the boundaries of the affected neighborhood
organization(s), if applicable.
(d) The city council may adopt a resolution approving, modifying
and approving, or denying the application for annexation.
(2) Land annexed to the city according to the procedures in EC 9.7800 –
9.7835 shall be automatically rezoned as of the effective date of the
annexation from Lane County land zones and zoning overlays to
equivalent Eugene zones and overlay zones as shown in Table 9.7820
Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones. For purposes of this section, land
that is also within an area identified as a Nodal Development Area on the
Metro Plan Diagram shall be automatically included in the Eugene /ND
Nodal Development Overlay Zone. The official city zoning map shall be
amended to reflect the change of zone.
Table 9.7820 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones
Urbanizable Land Zones Eugene Zones
AG/UL Agricultural AG Agricultural
PL/UL Public Land PL Public Land
R-1/UL Low-Density Residential R-1 Low Density Residential
R-2/UL Medium-Density Residential R-2 Medium Density Residential
GO/UL General Office GO General Office
C-1/UL Neighborhood Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2/UL Community Commercial C-2 Community Commercial
I-2/UL Light-Medium Industrial I-2 Light-Medium Industrial
Page 5 of 8
Table 9.7820 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones
Urbanizable Land Zones Eugene Zones
I-3/UL Heavy Industrial I-3 Heavy Industrial
Urbanizable Land Zoning Overlay Eugene Overlay Zones
/SR Site Review /SR Site Review
/CAS Commercial Airport Safety /CAS Commercial Airport Safety
/WR Water Resources Conservation /WR Water Resources Conservation
Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
(3) The city will not deem an application complete for a change in the zoning
of territory proposed for annexation until the annexation has been
approved by the city.
(4) Withdrawals of annexed territory from a public service district serving the
territory shall be processed as provided in EC 9.7835.
Page 6 of 8
Option 3 -- REWRITE OF EC 9.7820 TO PROVIDE FOR HEARING ON
CERTAIN ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS
9.7820 Annexation – Procedures.
(1) For an application submitted pursuant to EC 9.7810(2):
(a) A public hearing is required only if:
1.
2.
3.
4.
When a public hearing is required, the procedures that apply are
those in (2) below and subsections (b)-(d) of this section do not
apply.
(b) When no public hearing is required, the planning director shall
forward to the city council a written recommendation based on the
approval criteria in EC 9.7825 that the application be approved,
modified and approved, or denied.
(c) At least 10 days prior to the date the council considers the planning
director’s recommendation, notice of the application that contains
the street address or other easily understood geographical
reference to the property, the planning director’s recommendation,
and the date and time the council will consider the recommendation
shall be mailed to:
1. The applicant
2. Owners and occupants of properties located within 100 feet of
the perimeter of the subject property; and
3. The neighborhood group or community organization officially
recognized by the city council that includes the area of the
subject property.
(d) The city council may adopt a resolution approving, modifying and
approving, or denying the application for annexation.
(2) For an application submitted pursuant to EC 9.7810(3) or an application
described in (1)(a), above:
(a) A public hearing is required.
(b) The city council shall set a date, time and place for it to conduct a
hearing to consider the application.
(c) The planning director shall forward to the city council a written
recommendation based on the approval criteria in EC 9.7825 that the
application be approved, modified and approved, or denied.
(d) Notice of the public hearing shall be:
1. Mailed at least 14 days prior to the public hearing to those
listed in subsection (1)(c) above;
2. Published in a local newspaper with general circulation once
each week for two successive weeks prior to the hearing date;
and
3. Posted in four public places in the city for two successive
weeks prior to the hearing date. One of the postings shall be
located within the boundaries of the affected neighborhood
organization(s), if applicable.
Page 7 of 8
(e) The city council may adopt a resolution approving, modifying and
approving, or denying the application for annexation.
(3) Land annexed to the city according to the procedures in EC 9.7800 –
9.7835 shall be automatically rezoned as of the effective date of the
annexation from Lane County land zones and zoning overlays to
equivalent Eugene zones and overlay zones as shown in Table 9.7820
Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones. For purposes of this section, land
that is also within an area identified as a Nodal Development Area on the
Metro Plan Diagram shall be automatically included in the Eugene /ND
Nodal Development Overlay Zone. The official city zoning map shall be
amended to reflect the change of zone.
Table 9.7820 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones
Urbanizable Land Zones Eugene Zones
AG/UL Agricultural AG Agricultural
PL/UL Public Land PL Public Land
R-1/UL Low-Density Residential R-1 Low Density Residential
R-2/UL Medium-Density Residential R-2 Medium Density Residential
GO/UL General Office GO General Office
C-1/UL Neighborhood Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2/UL Community Commercial C-2 Community Commercial
I-2/UL Light-Medium Industrial I-2 Light-Medium Industrial
I-3/UL Heavy Industrial I-3 Heavy Industrial
Urbanizable Land Zoning Overlay Eugene Overlay Zones
/SR Site Review /SR Site Review
/CAS Commercial Airport Safety /CAS Commercial Airport Safety
/WR Water Resources Conservation /WR Water Resources Conservation
Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
(4) The city will not deem an application complete for a change in the zoning
of territory proposed for annexation until the annexation has been
approved by the city.
(5) Withdrawals of annexed territory from a public service district serving the
territory shall be processed as provided in EC 9.7835.
Page 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Recommendations
On October 29, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of an ordinance
concerning transition of annexation procedures. In taking this action, the Planning Commission
also recommended the City Council consider several revisions to the draft ordinance. The
Planning Commission’s recommended revisions are listed below. For purposes of the Council’s
November 19, 2007, public hearing, staff has provided the Council with an updated version of
the draft ordinance which incorporates those Planning Commission recommendations that simply
address an error in the previous draft or the need for clarification. Those Planning Commission
recommendations that have been incorporated into the 11/19/07 draft ordinance are indicated,
below with an asterisk (*) and are not ‘called out’ in the comment section of the 11/19/07 draft
ordinance.
1. Increase the public notice requirements as follows:
a. EC 9.7820(1)(c): Require 30 days notice, rather than 10 days, prior to the date the council
considers the planning director’s recommendation.
b. EC 9.7820(1)(c)(2): Require public notice to owners and occupants within 500 feet of
the subject property, rather than 100 feet.
c. EC 9.7820(2)(d)(1): Require 30 days notice, rather than 14 days, prior to a public hearing.
*d. EC 9.7820(2)(d)(3): Require at least one of the 4 posted notices to be located near the
subject property.
*2. Revise the ordinance title to include more information.
*3. Clarify the meaning of the word “territory”.
*4. EC 9.7835(2): Include language to ensure that affected service districts receive notice of the
public hearing regarding withdrawal from service districts.
5. Consider adding standards to clarify the circumstances under which the City Council will
require a public hearing for a double-majority annexation application.
*6. Clarify the relationship between the general Chapter 9 definition of “owner” and the
definition provided for purposes of the annexation provisions.
*7. EC 9.7810(4): Ensure that the city cannot rely on an expired annexation agreement as
“consent.”
ATTACHMENT D
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
October 29, 2007
To:
Eugene Planning Commission
From:
Steve Nystrom, Planning Division
Subject:
CA 07-2: Proposed ordinance establishing procedures for processing of
annexations requests within Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary
Action Requested
The Planning Commission will recommend to the City Council that the proposed
ordinance be approved, approved with modifications, or denied.
Briefing Statement
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 16, 2007 to consider a proposed
ordinance establishing procedures for processing annexation requests within Eugene’s Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB). Following the close of the public hearing, the Planning
Commission left the record open for one week, closing on October 23, 2007 at 5 P.M.
Testimony received through this period is attached.
The Planning Commission also identified several questions or requests for further
information from staff. Responses to these issues are provided below.
1. Please provide some historical background on the Boundary Commission, including
concerns raised in public testimony.
Please see the memorandum from Kurt Yeiter dated October 18, 2007, including
attachments.
2. What type of home improvements trigger annexation in order to obtain a building permit?
EC 9.4640 describes the various uses and activities that either require annexation or are
exempt. These code provisions were adopted by both the City of Eugene and Lane County.
With regard to home improvements, annexation would be required if the improvements
constituted a new or additional dwelling. However, annexation would not be required for a
single-family residence if used in conjunction with a farm use or management, growing or
harvesting of forest products. Manufactured dwelling hardship permits would also be
exempt from annexation. Other improvements, such as remodels, room additions or
expansions would also not trigger annexation.
3. Please provide testimony from the Legislatures’ deliberations on SB 417.
Please see attachment which includes the legislative history.
4. Please provide information on the ratio of contiguous and non-contiguous unannexed
property within the UGB, including some form of map as an alternative.
Staff will provide a map at the October 29, 2007 meeting to represent this information to the
extent possible.
5. How are other cities addressing annexations, especially those that correlate closely to
Eugene?
Please see attachment.
6. Please provide examples of notification required for other Eugene applications, and if
possible, examples within the County.
Eugene has 5 basic categories of land use applications which each have specific noticing
requirements. Following is a breakdown of each:
Type I: Clear and Objective standards; Planning Director Decision
Example: Property Line Adjustment
Notice: Notice of decision to applicant within 5 days of decision
Type II: Administrative decision by the Planning Director
Example: Tentative Subdivision or Partition, Site Review
Notice: Mailed notice to 300’ radius 20 days prior to decision. Tentative Subdivision and
Site Review also require 3 posted notices and a freestanding sign
Type III: Quasi-judicial process; decision by the Hearings Official (public hearing)
Example: PUD, CUP, Zone Change
Notice: Mailed notice to 500’ radius 30 days prior to the public hearing. 3 posted notice and
a freestanding sign required for most applications.
Type IV: Quasi-judicial process; decision by the City Council (public hearing)
Example: Site Specific Metro Plan, Refinement Plan Amendment
Notice: Mailed notice to 300’ radius, neighborhood organizations 30 days prior to Planning
Commission public hearing. 3 posted notices and a freestanding sign. Mailed notice to
interested parties 10 days prior to City Council public hearing.
Type V: Legislative process; decision by the City Council (public hearing)
Example: Code Amendments, Refinement Plan Update
Notice: Mailed notice to Lane County, Springfield, neighborhood organizations 30 days prior
to Planning Commission public hearing. Newspaper notice 20 days prior to Planning
Commission public hearing. Mailed notice to interested parties 10 days prior to City Council
public hearing.
Lane County Noticing: While there are a variety of noticing requirements addressed in the
County’s code, two basic categories are as follows:
Limited Land Use Decisions: Administrative decisions similar to Eugene’s Type II.
Typically requires mailed notice to a 100’ radius 14 days prior to the decision.
De Novo Hearings: Public Hearing process similar to Eugene’s Type III. Mailed notice,
typically to a 250’ radius 20 days prior to the public hearing, and one posted notice.
Recommendation
Following deliberation, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
adoption of the attached ordinance amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code. If the
Commission has any suggested changes, staff will forward those specific recommendations
to the City Council for their consideration.
For more Information
th
Contact Steve Nystrom, Planning and Development Department, 99 West 10 Avenue,
Eugene, Oregon, 97401; telephone: (541) 682-8385; e-mail:
steven.a.nystrom@ci.eugene.or.us
Attachments
A. Draft Ordinance and findings
B. Memo from Kurt Yeiter, dated October 18, 2007
C. Testimony from legislative sessions on SB 417
D. Synopsis of annexation provisions in other cities
E. Public testimony received through October 23, 2007
Note to City Council: Attachments referenced in this AIS were not included in City
Council agenda packet, given the volume of information. A full copy of the Planning
Commission packet for October 29, 2007, including all attachments, will be available for
review in the council office.