HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5: Ordinance Concerning the Transition of Annexation Procedures
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Action: 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: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 5
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Steve Nystrom
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541/682-8385
ISSUE STATEMENT
The City Council will take action on an ordinance establishing the procedures for annexation
applications, applications for extra-territorial water or sewer extensions and for public service district
withdrawals within Eugene’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance
concerning procedures for annexation applications, applications for extra-territorial water or sewer
extensions and for public service district withdrawals. Following the close of the public hearing, the
City Council left the record open until Friday, November 30, 2007. All testimony received after the
public hearing through the close of the record has been attached to this staff report. During City
Council’s discussion, a motion was passed to initiate a Metro Plan text amendment to update references
to the Boundary Commission and other text that will no longer be applicable, given the passage of
Senate Bill 417. Staff will come back to the City Council with a time line and scope of potential
amendments needed.
Individual councilors also provided comments and questions on specific components of the draft
ordinance. Attached to this Agenda Item Summary, staff has provided a memorandum and two draft
ordinances to respond to these comments. In Attachment A is a draft ordinance that has been updated to
include non-policy improvements based on comments received since council consideration on
November 19. In Attachment B is an alternative draft ordinance that includes the same updates as are
included in Attachment A and that also provides some policy changes for council’s consideration.
Specifically, this alternate ordinance includes requirements for a hearing before the City Council for all
applications covered by the ordinance and increases notice as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Although the council has not provided specific direction on the draft ordinance, staff hopes that these
draft ordinances can facilitate action by the City Council on December 10, 2007. Further discussion of
the alternatives is included in the memorandum, dated November, 28, 2007 (Attachment C).
F:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M071210\S0712105.doc
RELATED CITY POLICIES
SB 417 requires the City of Eugene to assume responsibility for processing annexation requests and
public service district withdrawals within its UGB. It also removes the Boundary Commission as the
decision-maker with respect to extra-territorial extensions of water and sewer. The proposed ordinance
establishes the provisions to set out the City’s responsibilities with the abolition of the Boundary
Commission.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council may consider the following options:
1. Approve the draft ordinance in Attachment A.
2. Approve the alternative draft ordinance in Attachment B.
3. Approve one of the draft ordinances (Attachment A or B) with specific modifications as
determined by the City Council.
4. Deny the proposed ordinance.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Option 3: The City Manager recommends the City Council adopt the draft ordinance attached as Exhibit
A, modified to include the increased notice recommended by the Planning Commission.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to approve the draft ordinance attached as Exhibit A, modified to include the increased notice to
500 feet, 30 days prior to council action, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft ordinance and findings
B. Alternate draft ordinance
C. Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council, dated November 28, 2007
D. Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council, dated November 8, 2007
E. Public testimony received after the City Council public hearing and before the close of the record
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\M071210\S0712105.doc
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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,
including EWEB, shall not provide water, water service or sewer
service outside the city limits except as authorized pursuant to the city
charter, this code, and adopted resolutions. The city manager or the
manager's designee is hereby authorized to receive on behalf of the city
requests for the extra-territorial extensions of water service [extensions,] or
sewer service [extensions,] from inside the city limits to serve property
located outside the city limits or for the 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. Requests for the extra-territorial extension of water
service or sewer service 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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft clarify that any extra-territorial
extensions or contractual agreements to provide services extra-territorially must be consistent
]
with city-adopted policies.
Section 2.
The definition of “Owner” set forth in Section 9.0500 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
Ordinance -
1
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
9.0500 Definitions.
As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise,
the following words and phrases mean:
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
Ordinance -
2
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
Type II ApplicationsBeginning Reference
Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service EC 9.8115
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, including
annexations to abate a health hazard pursuant to ORS Chapter 222, 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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft insert a clear reference to
]
statutory health hazard abatement, as requested by Councilor Bettman.
Ordinance -
3
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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
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
Ordinance -
4
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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
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
Ordinance -
5
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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.]
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
Ordinance -
6
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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
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
Ordinance -
7
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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
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:
Ordinance -
8
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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.
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.
Ordinance -
9
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
(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.
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 from inside the city limits to serve property
located outside of the city limits. Except as specifically permitted in EC
9.8121, extensions may not go beyond the urban growth boundary. 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.
Terms and criteria may be more specifically explained in adopted city
resolutions concerning extra-territorial extensions.
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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft clarify the limited circumstances in
which the city will consider requests for extra-territorial extensions and refer to Council
]
resolutions, such as Resolution No. 2643, that provide greater detail as to the city’s policies.
Ordinance -
10
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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 from inside the city limits to serve
property located outside of the city limits.
[Comment: Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft clarify the limited circumstances in which the
city will consider requests for extra-territorial extensions.]
9.8119 Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service – Application
Requirements. In addition to the provisions of EC 9.7010 Application Filing, an
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) In no case shall the city extend services extra-territorially to a property
that could, instead, be annexed. Further, to receive extra-territorial water
or sewer service an applicant must demonstrate the inability to satisfy
either EC 9.7825(2) or (3);
(3) The applicant has entered into an annexation agreement on forms
provided by the city pertaining to the property proposed to be served or
will enter into such 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
Ordinance -
11
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
(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
consistent with adopted city resolutions, policies, plans and ordinances:
(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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft:
Revisions to EC 9.8121(2) are to maintain existing city policy by requiring a greater
justification to satisfy this criterion than “non contiguity.”
Revisions to EC 9.8121(3) are to clarify that the required annexation agreements must be
satisfactory to the city.
Revisions to EC 9.8121(8) are to require consistency with adopted city policies, even in the
case of extensions to abate communicable disease hazards or to serve areas previously served
by a dissolved water district. This will more clearly allow the Council to rely on policies and
]
definitions in, for example, Resolution No. 2643.
Section 8.
This Ordinance is intended to address the City’s increased
responsibilities due to the State Legislature’s passage of SB 417 abolishing the Lane
County Boundary Commission. The provisions of this Ordinance are intended to carry
forward, to the extent applicable, adopted City policies regarding annexations, extra-
territorial extensions, and public service district withdrawals. The legislative findings
attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
[Comment: Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft support the Council’s future reliance on
existing policies to guide decision-making.]
Ordinance -
12
ATTACHMENT A
12/10/07 – V-7
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.
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 11, 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.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ____________, 2007 ____ day of ______________, 2007
___________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance -
13
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
ORDINANCE NO. _________
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING ANNEXATION, EXTRA-
TERRITORIAL WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS, AND
PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURES;
AMENDING SECTIONS 2.212, 9.7055, 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,
including EWEB, shall not provide water, water service or sewer
service outside the city limits except as authorized pursuant to the city
charter, this code, and adopted resolutions. The city manager or the
manager's designee is hereby authorized to receive on behalf of the city
requests for the extra-territorial extensions of water service [extensions,] or
sewer service [extensions,] from inside the city limits to serve property
located outside the city limits or for the 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. Requests for the extra-territorial extension of water
service or sewer service 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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft clarify that any extra-territorial
extensions or contractual agreements to provide services extra-territorially must be consistent
]
with city-adopted policies.
Section 2.
The definition of “Owner” set forth in Section 9.0500 of the Eugene
Code, 1971, is amended to provide:
Ordinance -
1
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
9.0500 Definitions.
As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise,
the following words and phrases mean:
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 D
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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft
]
are to reflect Council action on all applications.
Section 4.
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
Ordinance -
2
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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, including
annexations to abate a health hazard pursuant to ORS Chapter 222, 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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft insert a clear reference to
]
statutory health hazard abatement, as requested by Councilor Bettman.
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
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
Ordinance -
3
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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
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
Ordinance -
4
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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.]
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 30 days prior to the public hearing to:
a. The applicant;
b. Owners and occupants of properties located within 500
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.
Ordinance -
5
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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
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.
9.7820 establishes the review procedures and public notice requirements for
[Comment:
annexation requests.
Revisions since 11/19/07 are to require hearings on all annexation
applications and to require notice to properties within 500 feet.
Ordinance -
6
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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.
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
Ordinance -
7
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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.
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
Ordinance -
8
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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 5.
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 6.
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 from inside the city limits to serve property
located outside of the city limits. Except as specifically permitted in EC
9.8121, extensions may not go beyond the urban growth boundary. 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.
Terms and criteria may be more specifically explained in adopted city
resolutions concerning extra-territorial extensions.
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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft clarify the limited circumstances in
which the city will consider requests for extra-territorial extensions and refer to Council
]
resolutions, such as Resolution No. 2643, that provide greater detail as to the city’s policies.
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 from inside the city limits to serve
property located outside of the city limits.
[Comment: Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft clarify the limited circumstances in which the
city will consider requests for extra-territorial extensions.]
Ordinance -
9
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
9.8119 Extra-Territorial Extension of Water or Sewer Service – Application
Requirements. In addition to the provisions of EC 9.7010 Application Filing, an
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 – Procedure and
Approval Criteria. The city shall consider an application for extra-territorial
extension of water or sewer service in accordance with the procedures at EC
9.7820(1). However, the approval criteria shall be those set out below. The city
council 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) In no case shall the city extend services extra-territorially to a property
that could, instead, be annexed. Further, to receive extra-territorial water
or sewer service an applicant must demonstrate the inability to satisfy
either EC 9.7825(2) or (3);
(3) The applicant has entered into an annexation agreement on forms
provided by the city pertaining to the property proposed to be served or
will enter into such 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
consistent with adopted city resolutions, policies, plans and ordinances:
(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
Ordinance -
10
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
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.
Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft are to require a city council hearing and decision on all
applications for extra-territorial extensions.
Section 7.
This Ordinance is intended to address the City’s increased
responsibilities due to the State Legislature’s passage of SB 417 abolishing the Lane
County Boundary Commission. The provisions of this Ordinance are intended to carry
forward, to the extent applicable, adopted City policies regarding annexations, extra-
territorial extensions, and public service district withdrawals. The legislative findings
attached hereto as Exhibit A are adopted in support of this Ordinance.
[Comment: Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft support the Council’s future reliance on
existing policies to guide decision-making.]
Section 8.
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.
Section 9.
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.
Ordinance -
11
ATTACHMENT B
12/10/07 – V-8
Section 10.
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 11.
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.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ____________, 2007 ____ day of ______________, 2007
___________________________ _____________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Ordinance -
12
ATTACHMENT C
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 28, 2007
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Steve Nystrom, 682-8385
Principal Planner
Subject:
Transition of Annexation Procedures
The City Council held a public hearing on November 19, 2007, to consider a proposed ordinance
which will establish annexation procedures for the City of Eugene. Following the close of the
hearing, the City Council provided comments on specific elements of the ordinance. Staff has
provided additional information in response to these comments below.
Alternate Ordinance
Although the City Council did not provide specific direction with respect to revising the draft
ordinance that appeared in the council’s October 31 and November 19 packets, several
comments suggested clarifications, non-policy improvements or other potential amendments to
consider. In response, staff has provided two updated draft ordinances for your consideration.
They are included in Attachments A and B. Both versions include suggested clarifications and
non-policy improvements that were suggested by councilors in the course of their consideration
thus far. The draft ordinance in Attachment A differs from the previously distributed draft only
by the inclusion of the suggested clarifications and non-policy improvement changes. Where
such changes have been made, staff has noted and explained them in the “Comment” sections of
the ordinance. To assist you in locating those changes, they are noted in bold-italic font and are
prefaced with the phrase “Revisions since the 11/19/07 draft.” The alternative draft ordinance in
Attachment B also includes those suggested clarifications and non-policy improvements, but in
addition, it includes some policy changes that were suggested in the course of the council’s
consideration. It includes the following elements:
Page 1 of 4
Requires City Council approval of extra-territorial extensions rather than the Planning
?
Director
Requires public hearings for all annexation requests
?
Increases public notification consistent with the Planning Commission’s recommendation
?
Although the City Council did not specifically direct these policy changes, staff is providing this
alternate draft of the ordinance to facilitate any intended motions on December 10, 2007.
Further discussion of these revisions is included below.
Extra-Territorial Extensions
Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended a Type II process for the review of extra-
territorial extensions. This remains unchanged in the draft ordinance in Attachment A.
However, Councilor Bettman questioned whether the Type II process (Planning Director
approval) was appropriate for extra-territorial extension applications. She indicated a preference
to consider a Type IV or V process, or other option that requires City Council approval, rather
than the proposed Type II process. In response, the alternative draft ordinance in Attachment B
is crafted to require City Council approval as an alternative to the proposed Type II process.
This alternative approach would be similar to the annexation review process, whereby
applications would go directly to the City Council for a public hearing.
Given the unique nature of these requests, staff believes that, if the council wishes to be the
decision-maker with respect to extra-territorial extensions, the council review process set out in
the alternative draft in Attachment B is more appropriate than the standard Type IV process. The
Type IV process is typically used for site specific Metro Plan or Refinement Plan Amendment
requests and also involves a two-step process with the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Type V procedures would not be an appropriate tool as that process is limited to legislative
actions.
Councilor Bettman also requested that we ensure that the ordinance would generally prohibit the
City from extending water or sewer service to areas outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB).
This is ensured through the approval criterion at EC 9.8121(1) which only allows approval of an
extension where the property proposed to be served is located within the City’s UGB, the airport,
or Lane Community College. Two exceptions to this general prohibition are specified under
9.8121(8), which would allow the council to approve such an extension in the case of a
communicable disease hazard for which the extension is the only practical remedy or where,
consistent with existing council policy, EWEB has entered into an agreement to provide water
services to properties within a now dissolved water district. Apart from the land use approval
process included in the draft ordinance, due to the City Charter relationship between the City of
Eugene and EWEB, the City Council must also approve of any proposals by which EWEB
would enable another entity (by its provision of water or services) to expand service areas. To
the extent necessary, this is addressed in Section 1 of the Ordinance, amending EC 2.212.
Councilor Bettman also suggested that the code provisions be more clearly tied to the detailed
policy direction in Eugene Resolution 2643, concerning extra-territorial extensions. In both of
the attached draft ordinances, we have provided such clarification by inserting several references
to, and consistency requirements with; “adopted resolutions” (See proposed revisions to EC
2.212, 9.8115, 9.8121 and to Ordinance Section 8). The City rarely includes in its code a
reference to a specific resolution, as such a reference would need to be amended if the resolution
Page 2 of 4
is later amended or repealed. In this case, the Council may wish to adopt revisions to Resolution
2643 to reflect that the Boundary Commission is no longer the decision-maker. This could be
accomplished in conjunction with future Metro Plan amendments intended to address the same
issue.
Councilor Bettman suggested that the provisions at EC 9.8101(8)(a) be clarified with respect to
the meaning of “communicable disease hazard.” Based on our review of related state statutes
(those concerning annexations to abate a health hazard) and considering the added references to
adopted resolutions, we believe that such clarification is unnecessary. Resolution 2643 defines
“communicable disease hazard” as “[a] condition which is conducive to the propagation or
dissemination of communicable or contagious disease producing organisms, which presents a
reasonably clear possibility that the public generally is being exposed to a disease which can
cause physical suffering or illness, and which has potential for spreading within the city of
Eugene.” This is almost exactly the same way that state annexation laws define “danger to
public health.” Should the City Council ever need to apply EC 9.8101(8)(a), it would reasonably
rely on both of these sources for a definition. Therefore, it does not need to be reproduced in the
ordinance.
Annexation Review Process
Councilor Bettman commented on the public notice requirements for annexation applications,
including reference to Lane County’s notice of 750 feet for certain applications. Not
surprisingly, Lane County requires this level of notice given the significantly larger parcel sizes
that exist outside the UGB. While it’s not uncommon to see parcels of 20, 50 or 100+ acres on
rural lands, the development pattern within the UGB is substantially more compact, including the
River Road/Santa Clara area (the vast majority of parcels are less than 1 acre).
Based on the limited scope of annexation requests, staff proposed a 100 foot notice requirement.
This distance is consistent with state noticing requirements applicable to city actions. As a
comparison, the city requires the following notice:
300 foot notice
Type II applications; includes subdivisions, partitions and site review: .
?
Type III applications; includes planned unit developments (PUD’s), conditional use
?
500 foot notice.
permits (CUP’s) and zone changes:
300 feet.
Type IV applications, including site specific Refinement Plan Amendments:
?
The applications listed above involve significantly more discretion and complexity than
annexation requests. However, the Planning Commission has requested that the noticing be
increased to a 500 foot radius. The alternative draft ordinance at Attachment B includes the
increased notice recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilors Bettman and Clark raised questions about the review process for annexations. The
draft ordinance previously provided to the council, and the draft ordinance provided as
Attachment A in this packet, include a “two-track” process, whereby the City Council would
only hold a public hearing when one is required by state law (in those circumstances described at
proposed EC 9.7810(3)). All others would be considered without a hearing. In response to a
suggestion from the Planning Commission, staff set out two other options that were included in
council’s November 19, 2007 packet. A copy of the memo outlining these other options is
included as Attachment D. The two options identified by staff were:
Page 3 of 4
Option 1
Require a public hearing for all annexation requests.
Option 2
Require a public hearing when one is required by state law and when one of the following
circumstances exists:
Property is over two acres in size
?
The city modifies the application to include right-of-way or public land
?
A request for a public hearing is made from those receiving public notice
?
While it is not staff’s recommendation to do so, if the council is inclined to pursue one of these
options, staff would recommend the council favor Option 1 which would require public hearings
for all annexation requests. While it is likely that many of the annexation requests will not
generate significant testimony, it may be more efficient for all concerned to simply set each
application for a public hearing rather than creating the additional steps included in Option 2.
Based on this, staff has included Option 1 in the alternative draft ordinance included as
Attachment B. Since this concept would add approximately 25 – 40 public hearings to the
council agenda per year (based on past annexation volume), staff would ask for City Council’s
support to look for appropriate efficiencies in scheduling and conduct of the hearings.
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.
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT D
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