HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: River Road/Santa Clara Annexation Policy
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: River Road/Santa Clara Annexation Policy
Meeting Date: January 24, 2007 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Jim Carlson
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5524
ISSUE STATEMENT
This work session was requested by Councilor Ortiz to review City annexation policy in River Road and
Santa Clara. Background material has been provided related to the policies in the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan General Plan, the role of the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission and
the current process for requesting the inclusion of road rights-of-way with privately initiated voluntary
annexations.
BACKGROUND
Annexation Policy
Annexation policy is primarily derived from the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan in
Chapter II, Fundamental Principles. There are seven themes or principles that are basic or fundamental
to the entire Metro Plan. This chapter of the Metro Plan is included in its entirety as Attachment A.
6. The Metropolitan Plan is based on the premise that Eugene and Springfield, the two existing cities,
are the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development within the urban
growth boundary.
One of the objectives in this section of the plan is to:
11. Identify methods of establishing an urban transition program which will eventually reduce service
delivery inefficiencies by providing for provision of key urban services only by cities.
The policies section addresses annexation specifically as follows:
16. Ultimately, land within the urban growth boundary shall be annexed to a city and provided with the
required minimum level of urban services. While the time frame for annexation may vary,
annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to urban.
18. As annexations to cities occur over time, existing special districts within the urban growth boundary
shall be dissolved. The cities should consider developing intergovernmental agreements, which
address transition issues raised by annexation, with affected service districts.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070124\S070124B.doc
Finally, there is a section on River Road and Santa Clara in the Urban and Urbanizable Land section of
this chapter which contains an additional policy related to annexation:
3. Annexation of the River Road and Santa Clara areas will occur only through strict applications of
state laws and local policies, e.g. ability to extend services in a timely manner. In each case, Eugene
will make every reasonable attempt to provide for annexation only on a voluntary basis and
according to prior individual property annexation agreements.
Many residents in the River Road and Santa Clara area do not agree with the fundamental principles or
polices in the Metro Plan. There is not agreement that the City should provide a full range of urban
services rather than having the multitude of special districts, the City and Lane County providing
services at the current level.
Much of this River Road and Santa Clara section was written prior to the 1982 adoption and initial
acknowledgement of the Metro Plan. It was written at a time when sanitary sewer service provision was
the significant issue. In order to allow sanitary sewer service to be provided outside the city limits,
special policies were developed and put into place. At this time, the sanitary sewer project has been
completed and nearly all of the properties have connected to the system. The City owns and operates
the sanitary sewer system and provides this service to residents in the area both inside and outside the
city.
Under the current policy, several hundred small annexations have occurred in River Road/Santa Clara
since the Metro Plan was adopted in 1982, resulting in about 40 percent of the area within the City.
Currently, all annexations are initiated by the property owner and submitted directly to the Boundary
Commission after review by City staff to ensure that the application meets the following criteria:
1.The property is inside the urban growth boundary and annexation would be consistent with
adopted plans and policies.
2.Public services and facilities can be provided as prescribed in the Metro Plan or applicable
refinement plans.
3.Annexation will result in a boundary in which services can be provided in an orderly, efficient,
and timely manner.
The provisions of the Eugene Code related to annexation application procedures and criteria are
provided in Attachment B.
Lane County Boundary Commission
The Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission is a State agency created under ORS 199 to
review certain types of local government boundary changes. Its members are appointed by the
Governor. Boundary changes include minor boundary changes (annexations to or withdrawals from
cities or districts, and transfers of territory from one city to another city or one district to another
district). Major boundary changes include mergers, consolidations, formations, and dissolutions of cities
or districts. Currently, Boundary Commission staff (primarily Paula Taylor, Executive Officer) prepares
the staff notes, advertises the public hearings, staffs the public hearing and notifies all required local and
state agencies of the official outcome. The City pays an annual assessment which pays for a portion of
this service.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070124\S070124B.doc
The Boundary Commission processes annexation applications under its policies (Attachment C) and in
compliance with ORS 199. The Boundary Commission may approve annexations using an expedited
process if no affected parties ask for a public hearing. Most annexations in River Road have historically
used the expedited process. Annexations in Santa Clara have usually had a public hearing at the
Boundary Commission due to a request by the Santa Clara Water District. The Boundary Commission
has recently begun to hold hearings for any annexation in River Road and Santa Clara if a street segment
is included in the request. Only in a Boundary Commission area can a city have non-contiguous area. A
majority of annexations in both River Road and Santa Clara have used this provision and are currently
non-contiguous with the main body of the city.
There have been attempts in previous Oregon legislative sessions to dissolve the Lane County Boundary
Commission. Several members of the local delegation and newly-elected Lane County Commissioner
Fleenor have indicated interest in reviewing this issue again this year. If the Boundary Commission is
dissolved, annexations to the City would be processed by the City under ORS 222. ORS 222 does not
contain provisions for either expedited processes or non-contiguous annexations. If the Boundary
Commission is dissolved, the City would need to revise its code to be consistent with ORS 222. This
would require a public hearing and the approval of an ordinance by the City Council for each
annexation. Under the current Eugene code, this would also likely require public hearings at the
Planning Commission. City staff would be responsible for doing the staff notes, preparing the
ordinances and necessary findings, advertising the public hearings, staffing the public hearings and
notifying the required local and state agencies.
The City has been averaging 25 annexations per year for the last six years with about 40% of these in the
River Road area, 40% in the Santa Clara area and 20% in the rest of the city. It would be a significant
increase in Planning Division staff workload and a significant increase in City Council agenda time to
process these annexations.
Street Annexations
Another issue that has been discussed in the community in the past few years has been the addition of
street right-of-way to privately initiated annexations. Staff has previously provided two memoranda
describing the process for staff review of right-of-way annexation requests. These memos are included
as Attachments D and E. The Santa Clara and River Road Community Organizations have also
recently sent letters to the Mayor and City Council providing their prospective on this issue. These
letters are attachments F and G.
In summary, staff requests the addition of right-of-way to some voluntary annexation proposals when it
believes that urban service delivery will be improved and simplified by having the City provide services
rather than a mixture of the City, County and special districts. It is seen as a part of the transition to City
services. Most urban services are provided on, under, or via the street rights-of-way, including police,
fire and emergency medical transport, water, wastewater, stormwater and electric services.
The concern over the inclusion of street rights-of-way stems from the possibility of forming “islands” of
unincorporated property surrounded by land inside the city limits. Under State law (ORS 222.750),
when territory not within a city is surrounded by the corporate boundaries of the city, it is within the
power and authority of that city to annex such territory. Annexation by a city under this section shall be
by ordinance or resolution subject to referendum, with or without the consent of any owner of property
within the territory or resident in the territory. Some residents feel that this provision or the threat of the
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070124\S070124B.doc
use of this provision takes away their “right to vote” on whether their properties should be annexed. The
City has not used this provision for approximately 15 years. The last use of this provision was along
th
West 11 Avenue in 1988. In the late 1970s, the City used this provision to initiate the annexation of
several islands in the Willakenzie area.
Reviews of annexations in the past two years indicate that Eugene staff has requested the addition of
right-of-way for about 50% of the annexations. The Boundary Commission has been somewhat
inconsistent with how it has dealt with these requests, approving some, denying some and modifying
others. Staff continues to request the inclusion of right-of-way where it appears to be logical and to
improve the efficiency of service delivery and reduce the fragmented approach to the provision of public
services.
It should be noted that if the Boundary Commission is dissolved and the City wants to continue to allow
voluntary annexations in the River Road and Santa Clara areas, the annexation of additional road rights-
of-way will be necessary to connect these properties to the main body of the City.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Most of the related City policies are contained in Chapter II of the Metro Plan, as previously discussed.
The 2007 Legislative Policies document contains a section on annexation and makes two
recommendations:
Oppose legislation that eliminates or weakens existing methods of annexation.
Support legislation to allow withdrawal of territory from special service districts.
COUNCIL OPTIONS (these options are not exclusive of one another)
1.The City Council could choose to continue using the existing policies and practices allowing
voluntary annexations in the River Road /Santa Clara areas.
2.The City Council, in cooperation with Lane County and Springfield, could initiate a review of the
Fundamental Principles of the Metro Plan. This option would require the addition of a high priority
work task in the FY08 Planning Division Work Plan and significant staff resources.
3.The City Council could initiate a review of the policies in the Plan Principles section of the Metro
Plan related to River Road/Santa Clara. This option would require the addition of a high priority
work task in the FY08 Planning Division Work Plan and significant staff resources to coordinate
with Lane County at a minimum. Any changes to this section would also require the concurrence of
the City of Springfield.
4.The City Council could review its historical support for the Lane County Local Government
Boundary Commission and take a legislative position in support of or opposition to the continuation
of the commission. If the Boundary Commission were dissolved, it would be necessary to increase
or redirect staff resources in the Planning Division to process annexations for the remainder of
FY07, and would require the addition of a high priority work task in the FY08 and subsequent
annual work plans, and significant staff resources.
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070124\S070124B.doc
5.The City Council could provide direction on whether the City should request the inclusion of street
rights-of-way with voluntary annexations in the area and under what criteria or conditions such a
request should be made.
6.The City Council could initiate an annexation of certain street rights-of-way in the area after an
appropriate study of which ones are most appropriate.
7.The City Council could direct the City Manager to develop an annexation proposal to be placed on
the ballot for consideration by the unincorporated voters in River Road, Santa Clara, a combination
of both areas or some subset of the area.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends continuation of the current annexation practices, the administrative
request process to add street rights-of-way and continued support for the Lane County Local
Government Boundary Commission.
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to continue support for the Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission and to
continue current annexation practices.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan General Plan Chapter II Fundamental Principles
B. Eugene Code 9.7800-9.7885 Annexation Application Procedures and Criteria
C. Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission Policies
D. March 30, 2006 Memo from Jim Carlson to Mayor and Council
E. September 14, 2006 Memo from Dennis Taylor to Mayor and Council
F. May 3, 2006 letter from Santa Clara Community Organization to Mayor and Council
G. August 1, 2006 letter from River Road Community Organization to Mayor and Council
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Jim Carlson
Telephone: 682-5524
Staff E-Mail: james.r.carlson@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070124\S070124B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Chapter II
Fundamental Principles and
Growth Management Policy Framework
This chapter contains Fundamental Principles that reflect the overall themes of the Metro Plan.
The chapter also contains: Metropoliutn Goals; Growth Management Goals, Findings, and
Policies; Eugene and Springfield Jurisdictional Responsibility; Urban and Urbanizable Land;
River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings and Policies; and Metro Plan Diagram.
A. Fundamental Principles
There are seven principles that are fundamental to the entire Metro Plan. They are implicitly
included in the various individual Metro Plan components. These Fundamental Principles are:
1. The Metro Plan is a long-range policy document providing the framework within which
more detailed refin.ement plans are prepared. This concept is discussed in more detail in
the Introduction (Chapter I).
2. To be meaningful, the Metro Plan requires cooperation by all general purpose, special
district, and special function agencies in th.ecommunity. This reflects its comprehensive
nature encompassing physical land use, social, and economic implications for the
metropolitan area. Examples where cooperation is essential include planning and'
implementation of a transportation system, development of a metropolitan-wide energy
plan, metropolitan-wide analysis and resolution of certain housing issues, and planning
for areas outside the urban growth boundary (UGB) and within the Plan Boundary.
3. The Metro Plan and most of its elements are oriented to and require that urban
development occur in a compact configuration within the metropolitan UGB.
Elaboration of this principle is treated in the other sections ,of thi.s chapter, and in the
Public Facilities and Services Element in Chapter III.
4. Comprehensive plans identitY and establish the plan-zoning consistency concept and
recognize the importance of timing concerning implementation techniques.
Im.plementation techniques, including zoning, shall generally be consistent with the
precepts established in the Metro Plan, which is the broad policy document for the
metropolitan area. The consistency test shall continuously be applied to implementation
measures and public actions taken to rectify inconsistencies when the general direction
provided by the Metro Plan is modified. A variety of potential solutions to consistency
problems exist, including modification to the Metro Plan or alteration to the
implementation techniques themselves.
5. The zoning process shall. be monitored and adjusted to meet current urban land use
demands through the planning period for all land use categories.
II-A-l
6. The Metro Plan is based on the premise that Eugene and Springfield, th~ two existing
cities, are the logical providers of services accommodating urban. levels of development
within the DGB.
7.. The Metro Plan was developed to meet the supporting facilities.a.nd services necessary to
serve a population of 286,000 within the UGB by the year 2015..
II-A- 2
B. Metropolitan Goals
The following Metropolitan Goals are listed under the applicable section in this chapter or in
Chapter III (Metro Plan Elements) and Chapter IV (Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and
Refinements ).
Growth Management
1. Use urban,urbanizable, and rural lands efficiently.
2. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion of land from rural to urban uses in response
to urban needs, taking into account metropolitan and statewide goals.
3. Prote-ct rural lands best suited for non-urban uses ~om incompatible urban encroachment
Residential Land Use and Housing
1. Provide viable residential communities so all residents can choose sound, affordable
housing that meets individual needs.
Economic
1. Broaden, improve, and diversify the metropolitan economy while maintaining or
enhancing the environment.
Environmental Resources
1. Protect valuable natural resources and encourage their \vise management and proper use and
reuse, reflecting their special natural assets.
2. Maintain a variety of open spaces within and on the fringe of the developing area.
3. Protect life and property from the effects of natural hazards.
4. Provide a healthy and attractive environment, including clean air and water} for the metropolitan
population.
Willamette River Greenway, River Corridors, and Waterways
1. Protect, conserve, and enhance the natural, scenic, environmental, and economic qualities
of river and waterway corridors.
Environmental Design
1. Secure a safe, clean, and comfortable environment which is satisfying to the mind and
senses.
II-B-l
2. Encourage the development of the natural, social, and economic environment in a manner
that is harmonious with our natural setting and maintains and enhances OUf quality of life.
3. Create and preserve desirable and distinctive qualities in local-and neighborhood areas.
Transportation
1. Provide an integrated transportation and land use system that supports choices in modes
of travel and development patterns that will reduce reliance on the automobile and
enhance livability, economic opportunity, and the quality of life.
2. Enhance the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area's quality of life and economic
opportunity by providing a transportation system that is:
. Balanced
· Accessible
. Efficient
· Safe
. Interconnected
· Environmentally responsible
· Supportive of responsible and sustainable development
· .Responsive to community needs and neighborhood impacts and
· Economically viable and financially stable
Public Facilities and Services
1. Provide and maintain public facilities and services in an efficient and environmentally
responsible manner.
2. Provide public facilities and services in a manner that encourages orderly and sequential
growth.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
1. Provide a variety of parks and recreation facilities to serve the diverse needs of the
community's citizens.
Historic Preservation
I. Preserve and restore reminders of our Origil1 and historic development as links between
past, present, and future generations.
II-B-2
Energy
1 ~ Maximize. the conservation and efficient utilization of all types of energy .
2. Develop environmentally acceptable energy resource alternatives.
Citizen Involvement
1. Continue to develop, maintain, and refme programs and procedures that maximize the
opportunity for.meaningful, ongoing citizen involvement in the community's planning
and planning implementation processes consistent with mandatory statewide planning
standards..
Metro Plan Review, Amendments, and Refinements
1. Ensure that the Metro Plan is responsive to the changing conditioJ?.s, needs, and attitudes
of the community.
11...B-3
c. Growtl Management Goals, Findings, and Policies
To effectively control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization, compact growth
and the urban growth boundary (DGB) are, and will remain, .the primary growth management
techniques for directing geographic pattemsofurbanization in the community. In general, this
means the filling in of vacant and underutilized lands,. as well as redevelopment inside the UGB.
Outward expansion of the UGB will occur only.when it is proven necessary according to tIle
policies set forth in.this Mel'roPlan, particularly in this element.
Goals
1. Use urban, urbanizable, and rnrallands efficiently.
2. Encourage orderly and efficient conversion .of land. from rural to urban uses in response
to urban needs, taking ~to account metropolitan and statewide goals.
3. Protect rural lands best suited for non-urban uses from incompatible urban encroacllmetit
Findings and Policies
Findings
1. Many metropolitan areas within the United States that have not implemented geographic
growth management techniques suffer fro.m scattered or leapfrog urban growth that
leaves vacant andundemtilized land in its pathanden.courages isolated residential
developments far from m.etropolitan. centers. Until adoption of the 1990 Plan's urban
service area concept, portions of this metropolitan area were cha.racterized by these
phenomena.
2. Beneficial results of compact urban growth include:
a. Use of most.vacant leftover parcels where utilities assessed to abutting property
owners are already in place.
b. Protection of productive forest lands, agricultural lands, and open space from
premature urban development.
c. More efficient use of limited fuel energy resources and greater use of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities due to less miles of streets and less auto dependence than
otherwise would be required.
d. Decreased acreage of leapfrogged vacant land, thus resulting in more efficiel1t and
less costly provision and use of utilities, roads, and public services such as [lIe
protection.
II-C~ 1
'e. Greater urban public transit efficiency by providing a higher level of service for a
given investment in transit equipment and the like.
3. The 'disadvantages ofa too-compact UGB can be a disproportionately greater increase in
the value of vacant land within the E:ugene-Springfield area, which would contribute to
higher housing prices. Factors other than size and location of the UGB and city limits
affect land and housing costs. These include site characteristics, interest rates, state and
federal tax laws, existing public service availability, and future public facility costs.
4. Periodic evaluation of land use' needs compared to land supply provides a basis for
orderly and non-excessive conversion of rural land to urbanizable land and provides a
basis for public action to adjust the supply upward in response to the rate of consumption.
5. Prior to the late 1960s, Eugene and Springfield had no growth management policy and,
therefore, growth patterns were generally dictated by natural physical characteristics.
6. Mandatory statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission (LCDC) require that all communities in the state establish VOBs to identify
and separate urbanizable land from rnralland.
7. Between 1970 and 1983, Springfield's population increased about 4 percent and
Eugene's about 2.5 percent a year, but unincorporated 'portions of the metropolitan area
experienced a population decline. About 17 percent of the total increase in the
population was related to annexations. This indicates that growth is occurring in cities,
which is consistent with the compact urban growth concept, and limitations on urban'
scatteration into unincorporated areas, as first embodied in the 1990 Plan.
8. In addition to Finding 7 above, evidence that the UGB is an effective growth
management tool includes the following:
ao Consistent reduction over time of vacant land within the DGB.
b. Reductio11 of vacant residential zoned land in Springfield and Eugene.
c. Greater value of vacant land within Springfield and Eugene than similar land
outside incorporated areas but within the UGB .
d. Increase since 1970 of the proportionate share .ofresidential building permits
issued within city limits.
9. Reduction in the use of zoning provisions and regulatory processes that favor single-
family detached dwellings on standard size parcels would increase the opportunity to
realize higher net residential densities than are presently occurring, particularly in newly
developing areas.
II-C-2
10. A variety of public services are provided by Lane County and special service districts to
unincorporated portions of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
11. In 1986, the. Cities of Eugene and Springfield entered into Urban Transition Agreements
with Lane County which transferred from the County to the Cities administration for
building and land use. within the urbanizable portion of the UGB.
Objectives
1. Continue to minimize urban scatteration and sprawl. by encouraging compact growth and
sequential development.
2. Insure that land supply is kept in proper relationship to land use needs.
3<< Conserve those lands needed to efficiently accommodate expected urban growth.
4. Protect rural land and open space from premature urbanization.
5. When necessa1)' to meet urban needs, utilize the least productive agricultural lands for
needed expansion.
6. Encourage new and maintain existing rural land uses where productive or beneficial
outside the.urban growth boundary.
7. Shape and plan for a compact urban growth form to provide for growth while preserving
the special character of the metropolitan area.
8. Encourage development of suita.ble vacant, underdeveloped, and redevelop able land
where services are available, .thus capitalizing on public expenditures already made for
these services.
9. Prot~ct life and property from natural hazards and natural disasters.
10. Allow smaller outlying communities the opportunity .to plan for tIleir own futures without
being engulfed by unlimited outward expansion of the metropolitan area.
11. Identify methods of establishing an urban transition program which will eventually
reduce service delivery inefficiencies by providing for the provision of key urban services
only by cities.
Policies
1. The UGB and sequential development shall continue to be implemented as an essential
means to achieve compact urban growth~ -The provision of all urban services shall be
concentrated inside the UGB.
II-C- 3
2. The UGB shall lie along the outside edge of existing and planned rights-of-way that form
a portion of theUGB so that the full right-of-way is within the UGB.
3. Control of location, . timing, and fmancing of the major public investments that directly
influence the growth form of the metropolitan area shall be planned and coordinated on a
metropolitan-wide basis.
4. Lane County shall discourage urban development in urbanizable and rural areas and
encourage compact development of outlying communities.
5. To.. maintain the existing physical autonomy of the smaller outlying communities, urban
development on agricultural and mrallandsbeyond the UGB sh.all be restricted and
based on at least the following criteria:
a.Preservation and conservation of natural resources
b. Conformity with the policies and provisions of the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan that borders the metropolitan. area.
c. Conformance with applicable mandatory statewide planning goals.
6. Outlying communities close'toSpringfield and Eugene shall be encouraged to develop
plans and programs in support of compact urban development.,
7. Conversion of rural and rural agricultural land to urbanizable . land through Metro Plan
amendments expanding the UGB shall be consistent with mandatory statewide planning
goal.
8. .Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through
annexati.on to a city when it is found that:
3. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area.
in an orderly and efficient manner. .
, b. There will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and
facilities. Conversion ofurbarnzable land to urban shall also be consistent with
the Metro Plan.
9. A full range of key urban facilities and services shall be provided to urban areas
according to .demonstrated need and budgetary priorities.
10. Annexation to a city through normal processes shall.continue to be the highest priority.
11. The tax differential concept, as provided for in ORS 222.111 (2), shall be one mechanism
that can be employed in urban transition areas.
II-C-4
12. When the following criteria are met, either Springfield or Eugene may annex land.which
is not contiguous to its boundaries.
a. The area to be annexed will be provided an urban service(s) which is (are) desired
immediately. by residents/propertyowners.
b. The area to be annexed can be serviced (with minimum level of key urban facilities
and services as directed in.the Metro Plan) in a timely and cost-efficient manner and
is a logical extension of the city's service delivery system.
c. The annexation proposal is accompanied by support within the area proposed for
annexation from the owners of at least half the land area in the affected territory.
13. Police, fire and emergency medical services may be provided through extraterritorial
extension with a signed annexation agreement or initiation of a transition plan and upon
concurrence by the serving jurisdiction.
14. Both Eugene and Springfield shall examine potential assessment deferral programs for
low-income households.
15. Creation of new special service districts or zones of benefit within the Plan Boundary of
the Metro Plan shaII.be considered only when all of the following criteria are satisfied:
a. There is no other method of delivering public services which are required~o
mitigate against extreme health hazard or public safety conditions.
b. The three metropolitan area general purpose governments concur with the
proposal to form the service district or zone of benefit.
c. The district or zone of benefit is.an interim service delivery method, and there are
legal assurances, such as annexation agreements, to ensure that annexation to the
appropriate city occurs "rithin the planning period.
d. The servicing city is not capable .of providing the full range of urban facilities and
services. in the short term, although it is recognized that urban facilities and
services will be provided by a city consistent with adopted public facilities.plans
and capital improvement programs.
e. The district or zone of benefit will contract with the appropriate city for interim
service delivery until annexed to the appropriate city.
16. Ultimately,. land within the UOB shall be annexed to a city and provided with the
required minimum level of urban facilities3nd services. While the time frame for
annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to
urban.
II-C-$
17. Eugene and Springfield and their respective utility branches, Eugene Water & Electric
Board (EWEB) and Springfield Utility Board (SUB), shall be the water and electrical
service providers within the UGB.
18. As annexations to cities occur over time, existing special service districts within the UGB
shall be dissolved. The cities should consider developing intergovernmental agreements,
which address transition issues raised by annexation, with affected special service
districts.
19. The realignment (possible consolidation or merger) of fringe special service districts shall
be.examined to:
R. Promote urban service transition to cities within the UGB.
b. Provide continued and comprehensive rural level services to property and people
outside the UGB.
c. Provide more efficient service delivery and more efficient governmental structure
for serving the immediate urban fringe.
20. Annexation of territory to existing service districts within the U"GB shall occur only when
the following criteria are met:
a. Immediate annexation to a city is not possible because the required minimum.
level of key urban facilities and services cannot be provided in a timely manner
(within five years, as outlined in an adopted capital improvements program);
b. Except for areas that have no frreprotection, . affected property owners have
signed consent to annex agreements with the applicable city consistent with
Oregon annexation law.
Such annexations shall be considered as interim service delivery solutions until ultimate
annexation to a city occurs.
21. When unincorporated territory within the UGB is provided with any new urban service,
that service shall be provided by the following method (in priority order).
a. Annexation to a city;
b. Contractual annexation agreements with a city;
c. Annexation to an existing district (under conditions .described previously in Policy
#20); or
d. Creation of a new service district (under conditions described previously in Policy
# 15).
II-C-6
22. Cities shall not extend.water or wastewater service outside city.linrits to serve a residence
or business without first obtaining a valid annexation petition, a consent to annex
agreement, or when a health hazard annexation is required.
23. Regulatory and fiscal incentives that direct the geographic allocation of growth and
density according to adopted plans and policies.. shall be examined and, when practical,
adopted.
24. To accomplish the Fundamental Principle of compact urban growth addressed in the text
and on the Metro. Plan Diagram, overall metropolitan-wide density of new residential
construction, but not necessarily each project, shall average approximately six dwelling
units per gross acre over the pl.anning period.
25. When conducting metropolitan planning studies, particularly the Pubic Facilities and
Services Plan, consider the orderly provision and fmancmg of public services and the
overall impact on population and geographical growth in the metropolitan area. Where
appropriate,. future planning studies should include specific analysis of the growth
impacts suggested by that particular study for the metropolitan area.
26. Based upon direction provided in Policies 4, 8, and 24 of this section, any development
taking place. in an urbanizable area shall be designed to the development standards of the
city which would be respqnsible for eventually providing a minimum level of key urban
services to the area. Unless the following conditions are met, the minimum "lot size for
campus industrial designated areas shall be .50 acres and .the minimum lot size for all
other designations shall be 10 acres. Creation of ne,\\' parcels in the urbanizable area will
comply with the ..following standards:
a. The approval ofa conceptual plan for ultimate development at urban densities in
accord with applicable plans and policies.
b. Proposed land uses and densities conform to applicable plans and policies.
c. The. owner of the property has signed an agreement with th.e adjacent city which
provides:
(1) The owner and his or her successors in interest are obligated to support
annexation proceedings should the city, at its option, . initiate annexation.
(2) The owner and his or her successors in interest agree not to challenge any
annexation of the subject property.
(3) The owner and his or her successors in interest will acquire city approval
for any subsequent new use, change of use, or substantial intensification of
use of the property. The city will not withhold appropriate approval .ofthe
use arbitrarily if it is in compliance with applicable plans, policies, and
II-C-7
standards, as interpreted by the city, as well as the conceptual plan
approved under subsection a above.
27. Any lot under five acres in size. to be created in an urbanizable area will require utilizing
the following additional standards:
8. The property will be owned by a governmental agency or public utility.
b. A majority of parcels located within 100 feet of the property are smaller than five
acres.
c. No more than three parcels are being created.
28. The siting of all residences on urbanizable lots served by on.-site sewage disposal systems
shall be reviewed by Lane County to ensure the efficient future conversion of these lots
to urban densities according to Metro Plan assumptions and minimum density
requirements.
29. . The approval of on-site sewage disposal systems for rural and urbanizable area uses and
developments shall be the responsibility of Lane County, subject to: (a) applicable state
law; (b) the criteria for the creation of new lots in Policies 26, 27 above; ( c) the
requirement for the siting of residences in Policy 28 above; (d) requirements of Policy 30;
and (e) the requirements for special heavy industrial designated areas.
30. In order to encourage economic diversification, on-site sewage disposal systems shall be
allowed for industrial development and for commercial development allowed within
Campus Industrial designated areas in conjunction with annexation to a city, when
. extension of the public wastewater system. is imminent or is identified as part of an
approved capital improvement. program.
31<< Eugene, . Springfield, and Lane County shall continue to involve affected local
govemmentsand other urban service providers in development of future, applicable
Metro Plan revisions, including amendments and updates.
32. If expansion of the UGB is contemplated, all other options should be considered . and
eliminated before consideration of expanding the UGB in the area west of Highway 99
and north of Royal Avenue.
Note: For other related policy discussion, see the Public Facilities and Services Element in
Chapter III-G.
II-C-8
D. Jurisdictional Responsibility
The division of responsibility for metropolitan planning between the two cities is the Interstate 5
Highway. Lane County jurisdiction is between the urban growth boundary (UGB) and Metro
Plan Plan Boundary (Plan Boundary); and the county has joint responsibility with Eugene
between the city limits and UGB west of the Interstate 5. Highway and with Springfield between
the city limits and UGB east of the Interstate 5 Highway. State law (1981) provides a
mechanism for creation of a new city In. the River Road and Santa Clara area. Refer to Metro
Plan Chapter IV and intergovernmental agreements to resolve specific issues of jurisdiction.
II..D~l
E. Urban and Urbanizable Land
This section addresses the need to allow for the orderly and economic extension of public
services, the need to provide an orderly conversion of urbanizable to urban land., and the need to
provide flexibility for market forces to operate in order to maintain affordable housing choices.
For the defmitions of urban and uroanizable lands,. as well as rural lands and the urban growth
boundary (UGB) as used in this section, refer to the Metro Plan Glossary.
The undeveloped.(urbanizable) area within the.UGB,separating urban and urbanizable land from
rural land, has been carefully calculated to include an adequate supply to meet demand fora
projected population of 286,000 through..the end of the planning period (2015). However,
unless the community consciously decides to limit future expansions of the UGB,one of several
ways to accommodate growth, that boundary will be..expanded in future plan,updates so that
before 2015. it will include more urbanizable area reflecting future population and employment
needs than that now depicted on the Metro Plan Diagram. Accordingly, periodic updates of land
use needs and revision of the UGB to reflect extensions of the planning period will ensure that
adequate surplus urbarnzable land is always available.
The key to addressing the needs stated at the beginning of this section is not so much the
establishment ofaUGB, but maintaining an adequate and reasonable supply of available
undeveloped land at any point in time. The "adequate" and "reasonable" tests are the key to the
related phasing and surplus land issues.
In order to maintain an "adequate" supply of available surplus land to allow development to
occur, annexation must take place in advance of demand in order to allo,,' for the provision of
public capital improvements, such as wastewater trunk lines, arterial streets, and water trunk
lines. Most capital improvement programs are "middle-range" type plans . geared three to six
years into the .future. The time . between annexation and the . point of finished construction usually
involves. several steps:
1. The ac.tualannexation and. rezoning ofthe.land (with accompanying public hearing
processes, including Lane County Local Government Boundary Commission appro'\lal).
2. Filing and approval of a subdivision or planned unit development (with accompanying
public hearing processes).
3. Extension of public capital improvements (in accordance with programming.and funding
availability).
4. Construction of the private development {including local extension of streets, sidewalks,
wastewater, water, electricity, and construction of dwelling units or businesses).
The time period between initiating annexation and sale of a hime or opening of a business varies
but.can easily take from two to six years.
II-E-l
.Large-scale and timely annexations of undeveloped and underdeveloped areas should be
encouraged to enhance the opportunity for compact urban growth, an efficient land use pattern,
and a well-planned supporting arterial street.system.
The approach is to allow th~ cities to develop annexation programs which will ensure a six-to
ten-year surplus of land. Such a range will allow the maintenance of an adequate surplus of land
at any point in time. The six- to ten-year surplus is suggested as a reasonable range which will
not only allow for the conversion of urbanizable "to urban land through annexation but will allow
the cities the opportunity and flexibility to plan for and provide urban facilities and services on a
large scale. The six-year minimum will allow the cities and other providers of urban services to
develop coordinated capital improvement programs in accordance with the Metro Plan. Such
coordinated capital improvement programs can and should be closely related to implementation
of annexation plans.
. The Metro Plan will be updated before undeveloped surplus urban lands are exhausted.
The six- to ten-year low density residential land surplus should be based. on the amount of
development over ~he previous six to ten years. For other land use categories, annexation
programs should be based on past trends, Metro Plan assumptions, and Metro Plan Goals,
particularly those goals dealing with prom.otion of economic development and diversity.
Improved momtoringtechniques made possible by the Regional Land Information Database of
Lane County (RLID) formerly referred to as the Geographic Information System (GIS) should
allow such monitoring to occur. The monitoring information should be provided on a
jurisdictional basis and on the metropolitan level.
Eugene, Springfield, and Lane County shall cooperatively monitor and periodically report on
development trends and land supply for all categories of residential, commercial, and industrial
lana. This system shall include consideration of proper zoning, coordinated capital
improvements programming, annexation, and other factors necessary to maintain availability of
sufficient land to ensure that the supply is responsive to demand in keeping with the
Fundamental Principles of the Metro- Plan.
In summary, the cities should continually monitor the conversion ofurbamzable land to urban
and pursue active.annexationprogrnmsbased on local policies and applicable provisions of this
Metro .Plan including, for example:
1. Orderly economic provision of public facilities and services (nlaintenance and
development of capital improvement programs).
2. Availability of sufficient land to ensure a supply -responsive to demand.
3. Compact urban growth.
4. Cooperation with other utilirtes and providers of urban services to ensure coordination
with their respective capital improvement programs.
II-E-2
F. River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings, Objectives, and
Policies
The River Road and Santa Clara portions of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area are
important components of the metropolitan 'community. Both River Road and Santa Clara have:
· Unique and distinctive neighborhood identities
· Experienced considerable private investment in the past years
· Experienced considerable public investments; e.g., transmi.ssionfacilities by the
Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) and educational facilities by public school
systems
. A sound housing stocK
In Santa Clara, relatively large parcels of vacant land exist which, with adequate urban services,
can be developed at increased densities; in River Roa~, relatively large developed lots exist
which could be further developed by their owners.
The future of both the River Road and Santa Clara areas will play a critical role in the growth of
the metropolitan area. For some. years, officials of Lane County and Eugene have cooperatively
discussed methods of delivering services to these neighborhoods.
These discussions have continually focused on two sides of a single, critical issue:
How can the short-ran.ge costs and benefits to the residents and other service providers be
balanced against, and what are the long-range costs and benefits to the residents and the
entire metropolitan area of logical growth and increased, densities?
Inflation has drastically increased.the need to balance these two potentially divergent objectives.
The effects of continued inflation can be mitigated by identifying and implementing a sol~tion to
the servicing issue.
A unique set of circumstances has occurred which lends direction to resolution of the service
delivery questions for both River Road and Santa . Clara.
1.. As part of the acknowledgement process for tbe Metro Plan, the Land Conservation and
Development Commission (LCDC) directed that a servicing plan be developed for both
River Road and Santa Clara and that Eugene provide those services.
2. Discussions between Eugene officials and state and county t~presentatives of the River
Road and Santa Clara area have led to reconsideration of Eugene's policy to provide
services to these neighborhoods only after annexation to the City of Eugene of both areas
has occurred.
3.. Preliminary review of Eugene's comprehensive capital improvement program suggested
a. full range of services could not be provided immediately even if the areas were atmexed
at one time'..
II-F-l
Based on these three conditions, a situatipn evolved which led to a set of findings, objectives,
and policies for inclusion in the Metro Plan and ultimately will lead to delivery of urban services
to the River Road and Santa Clara areas in cooperation with the residents of these
neighborhoods. That situation is as follows.
Theeity of Eugene constructed.and owns the main wastewater system that serves the River
Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods. Eugene has altered its policies pertaining to the service
delivery to both River Road and Santa Clara to allow Incremental annexation. Annexation must,
however, be consistent with state law and other applicable local policies (e.g., the ability of the
city to deliver key urban facilities and services in a timely manner). Eugene will pursue
annexation only in accordance with applicable state laws and will not use these mechanisms to
circumvent the process. In every case, Eugene will make every reasonable attempt to provide for
annexation only ona voluntary basis and in accord with previous individual property annexation
agreements. The City, in conjunction with Lane. County and the citizens of both River Road and
Santa Clara, developed a River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan which is responsive. to
the basic service .infrastructure. which is either in place or contemplated for these areas. An
integral part of the implementation phase of the River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan is
'a fmancing mechanism which takes into account the financial abilities of residents/property
owners and the City of Eugene to pay for service delivery in that area.
The following fmdings, objectives, and policies reflect the situation that evolved.
Findings, .Objectives, and Policies
Findings
1. Land supply in the River Road and Santa Clara areas is of metropolitan-wide
significance.
2. In order to achieve urban densities, urban services, including public wastewater service,
must be provided.
3. For a long period. of time, officials of Lane County and Eugene have made great efforts to
resolve the service delivery problems for both River Road and Santa Clara.
4. The history and pattemof development in River Road and Santa Clara have resulted in
the.creation of two unique metropolitan neighborhoods.
5. The most cost-effective method. of service delivery is through annexation.
6. An urban facilities plan is the best method of providing a framework for capital
improvements programming in the River Road and Santa Clara areas.
7 . Because of tbe substantial public investments already ,made in both neighborhoods, it is
most cost-efficient to. achieve urban densities in River Road and .Santa Clara prior to
II..F-2
accommodating new development needs in totally. undeveloped areas.
The 1970.CH2M Hill Sewerage System Stud)!, River Road-Santa Clara publication
demonstrates.tbe feasibility of providing wastewater service to the River Road .and Santa
. Clara area in a manner consistent with the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Waste
Treatment Alternatives Report (208 Facilities Plan) and the Metro Plan.
The CH2M. Hill publication defmed study boundaries and made population projections
which are different than those contained in the Metro Plan; modifications to these factors
is occurring as part of the required system design work prior to construction.
The detailed design work \vhich will occur as part of development of the system will
allow discussion of various system concepts with the residents and property owners of
the. River Road .and Santa Clara areas.
1. The River Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan has been completed.
Based on the River Road/Santa Clara Groundwater Study, Final Technical Report,
February, 1980 by Sweet, Edwards, and Associates, Inc., the Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission (EQC) found on April 18, 1980, that:
a. The River Road-Santa Clara shallow aquifer is generally contaminated with fecal
coliform organisms in excess of drinking water and body contact standards.
b. Existing nitrate-nitrogen concentrations within the area exceed the planning target
on the average.
c. About 73 percent oftbe nitrate...nitrogen pollutants (and, by analogy, a similar
share of the .fecal coliform contaminations) result from septic tank effluent.
Septic tank pollutants can migrate rapidly to the groundwater from drainfields via
macropore travel.
TheEQC concluded that a public health hazard exists based on fecal coliform data for
people using the aquifer for domestic (drinking) or irrigation and that a health hazard
similarly exists in several areas based on nitrate-nitrogen levels.
To remedy the groundwater pollution problem., the Environmental Protection Agency
(EP A) awarded Eugene a grant to build a wastewater. system to. replace. th.e individual
septic systems in use throughout. River Road and Santa Clara according to a prescribed
time frame.
Efforts toward incremental and voluntary annexation of River ~Road and Santa Clara
properties to Eugene and connection to the wastewater system. according to the EP A's
time frame have not been successful.
II-F-3
Objectives
1. Ensure the availability of land in River Road and Santa Clara for urban levels of
development
2. Capitalize on existing public expectations by providing further public services which will
allow the River Road and Santa Clara areas to achieve urban densities.
3. Deliver a full range of urban services to the River Road and Santa Clara areas through.
annexation. .
4. Consider the unique situation of the residents of River Road. and Santa Clara by providing
financing mechanisms which will take into account the fmancial ability of the residents to
pay for service delivery and the City of Eugene's ability to provide these services.
5. Guide capital improvements in the River Road and Santa Clara areas through the River
Road-Santa Clara Urban Facilities plan developed cooperatively by Lane County, the
City of Eugene, and the residents and property owners of the two areas.
6. Elimin.ate groundwater pollution from individual septic tank disposal systems in .River
Road and Santa Clara,
Policies
1. Eugene shall develop methods of financing improvements in the River Road and Santa
Clara areas. which are responsive to the unique situation of residents and property owners,
as well as the City of Eugene.
2. Eugene will plan, design, construct, and maintain ownersmpof the entire wastewater
system that services the River Road and Santa Clara areas. This will involve
extraterritorial extension which will be supported by Lane County before the Lane
County Local Government Boundary Commission and all other applicable bodies.
3. Annexation of the River Road and Santa Clara areas . will occur only through strict
application of state laws and local policies (e.g.., ability to extend key urban facilities and
services in a tim.ely manner)., In each case, Eugene will make every reasonable attempt to
provide for annexation only on a voluntary basis and according to prior individual
property ~nnexation agreements.
4.. The City of Eugene. shall provide urban services to .the River Road and Santa Clara
neighborhoods upon annexation. In the meantime, to reduce the . groundwater pollution
problem,' Eugene will extend wastewater service to developed properties.
5. Using the.CH2M Hill report as a foundation, efforts to prepare more detailed engineering
studies which will provide the basis. for a capital improvement program to sewer the
. River Road an.d Santa Clara areas in a manner cQnsistent with the above.policy direction
II-F -4
shall proceed.
6. No particular section of the Metro Plan shall be intetpretedas prohibiting the process of
incorporation of.a new city in River Road and Santa Clara in accordance with ORS 199
and 221. This means that:
a. As a comprehensive planning document, no particular section of the Metro Plan
shall be used in isolation to evaluate different courses of action.
b. The phrase "process of incorporation" refers to the specific steps of incorporation
. outlined in ORS 199 and 221.
c. This policy does not negate the requirement of public wastewater service as a
minimum level of key urban facilities and services. Any institutional solution to
providing. urban services in the. River. Road and. Santa Clara areas .must provide
public wastewater service to address LCDC requirements and to protect public
health and safety in resolving groundwater pollution problems. Public . wastewater
service is also required to achieve higher.than septic tank level of urban
residential densities and to .utilize efficiently valuable metropolitan-scale
buildable land.
II-F-5
ATTACHMENTB
Eugene Code
Annexation Application Proced.uresand Criteria
9.7800 DescriDtionofAnnexation.Process. The city shall provide for property to be
annexed and changed from county to. city zoning to ensure that an adequate supply
of lend. is available for development inside the city Umits,and.thatthe property can
be provided with a minimum level of key urban services as specified by the Metro
Plan ora refinement plan. AU annexations of property require final approval from
the Lane County local government boundary commission."lncertaln cases, the
planning commission and city council, or city council alone, may review and take
action on annexation applications, according to the applicablesectig.ns.in this land
use code,..beforethe annexation is forvvarded.to the Lane County local government
boundary commission for final action.
(Section 9.7800, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through. 6/1102.)
9.1805 Procedures to Annex Pro Derties. AU annexation applications shall be submitted
on a form approved by the city manager and accompanied by fees established by
the dtymanager, according to EC Chapter 2, and by the Lane County local
government boundarycommission.-
(1 J Annexations proposed by the property owner(s) for which special provisio.ns,
such as a delayed. effective ejate or concurrent zone change that. is not
automatic pursuant to EC 9.7810, are not applicable, may be forwarded by
city staff directly to the lane County local govemment boundary commission
for processing, as provided in Chapter 199 of the Oregon Revised Statutes
relating to local government.
(2) Annexations proposed by property owners to which special provisions are
applicable may be processed according to the procedures in EC 9.7815 Public
Hearing Schedule through EC 9.7880 Limitations on Refillna ofa Denied
APDUcation.
(3) In accordance with. state law, annexations may be initiated by the city council
through council resolution.
(4) Annexations involving p-ropertyin the "Industrial Corridor" as shown in Map
9.7805 Industrial Corridor, may be processed according toEe 9.7885
Annexation Procedures for the "Industrial Corridor" .
(Section 9" 7805, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 611102,,)
9.7810
ChanaesirlZone.. Properties annexed to the city shall be automaticaUychanged
from county zoning to the equivalent city zone, as shown in Table.9.7810Equivalent
Zones and Overlay Zones, unless one or more of the following apply"
(1) The property is in a lane County zone other than those in Table 9.7810
Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones.
(2) The applicant requests a zone other than the equivalent city zone in Table
9.7810 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones.
(3) The equivalent city zone in Table 9.7810 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones
is not consistent with the Metro Plan or applicable refinement plans.
(4) The property was identified on Exhibit D to Ordinance No. 20352 as one to
which the fNRWater Resources Conservation.Overlay Zone should be
applied upon annexation,in which case the property's zoning win
automatical'y,be changed to include the fNR Overlay Zone.
Properties annexed to the city according to the procedures in EC 9. 7805( 1) shall be
automaticaUy rezoned as of the effective date of the annexation from Lane County
9-425
07/14/2006
Eugene Code
UL urbanizable land zones and zoning overlays to equivalent Eugene zones and
overlay zones as shown in Table 9.7810 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones. For
purposes of this section, property that is also within an area identified asa Nodal
Development Area on the Metro Plan Diagram shall be automatiCally included in the
Eugene IND Nodal Development Overlay Zone. . The official Eugene zoning map
shall be amended to reflect the change of zone.
Table 9.7810 Equivalent Zones and Overlay Zones
Urbanizable land Zones Eugene Zones
AG/UL Agricultural AG Agricultural
PlIUL Public Land PL Public land
LDRlUL Low-Density Residential R-1 Low Density Residential
MDR Medium-Density Residential R-2 Medium Density Residential
GO/UL General Office GO General Office
C/UL Neighborhood Commercial C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
CCIUL Community Commercial C-2 Community Commercial
LMI/UL Light-Medium Industrial 1-2 Light...Medium Industrial
HI1UL Heavy Industrial 1...3 Heavy Industrial
Urbanizable Land Zoning Overlay Eugene Overlay Zones
fSR Site Review fSR Site Review
ICAS Commercial.Airport.Safety ICAS Commercial Airport Safety
IWR Water Resources Conservation IWR Water Resources Conservation
Overlay Zone Overlay Zone
(Section 9.7810, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02;
. amended by Ordinance No. 20285, enacted March 10, 2003, effective AprilS, 2003; Ordinance No.
20351, enacted November 14, 20051 effective January 1, 2006; and Ordinanoe No<<20352f enacted
November 14, 2005J effective January 1, 2006)
9.7815 Public Hearina Schedule. Within 60 days of the city's determination that an
application is complete, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, the
.planning commission.shaU conduct a public hearing to consider a proposed
annexation and, if applicable, a concurrent change in zoning.
(Section 9. 7815, see chart at front 0' Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9.7820 Public Hearina Not.ice.
(1) At least 20 days before the pla.nning commission public hearing, the city shall
mail written notice of the hearing to the:
(a) Applicant
(b) Owners of the · subject property.
(c) Owners and occupants of property located within 500 feet of the
perimeter of the subject property. '
(d) Neighborhood group officially recognized by the city that includes the
area .of the subject property.
(2) Notice of a proposed change in zone concurrent with. the annexation shall also
be sufficientpubUc notice of .a change tOJ or addition of, any overlay zone.
(Section 9. 7820, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02)
9.7825
Staff Investiaation and Report. City staff shall investigate the facts bearing on an
application and prepare a staff report with a staff recommendation. At least 7 days
prior to the public hearing, the staff report shall be submitted.to the planning
9-426
07/14/2006
Eugene Code
commission and made available to the public upon request. A copy of the report
shall be mailed or delivered to the applicant at the time it is delivered to the planning
commission.
(Section 9.7825, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9.7830 Public Hearina Conduct and Procedures. The planning commission shall
conduct a public hearing according to the quasi-judicial hearing proceduresinEC
9.7065 Quas.i-Judicial Hearinas... Procedures.
(Section 9.7830, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9.1835 Crite.ria of ADDfoval.for Annexations.. The pla.nning commission shall review the
application and receive pertinent evidence and testimony as to why or how the
proposed annexation is consistent with the following criteria:
(1) The property is inside the urban growth boundary and annexation would be
consistent with adopted plans and policies.
(2) Public services and facUities can be provided as prescribed in the Metro Plan
or applicable refinement plans.
(3) Annexation win result in a boundary in which services can be provided in an
orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
(Section 9.7835, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 611/02.)
9.7840 Criteria of Approval for Chanaesin Zo.ne Concurrent with Annexations. To
maintain consistency between zoning and applicable plans and studies, the
planning commission may also recommend zone changes for the city council. to
consider in conjunction with annexation applications. The planning commission shall
review the application and receive pertinent evidence and testimony as to why or
how. the proposed change in zone concurrent with an annexation is consistent with
the following criteria:
(1) The proposed change is consistent with the Metro . Plan . The written text of
the Metro Plan shan take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where
apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist.
(2) The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement
plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro
Plan, the Metro Plan is the prevailing. document.
(3) The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed ,zone in the location
of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key
urban facilities and services.
(Section 9. 7840, see ohart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9.7845 Plannina Commission. Decision. Unless the applicant agrees to a postponement,
within 15 days following the close of the record, the planning commission. shall. deny
the application or recommend approval to the city council. A recommendation of
approval may include modifications. to the original annexation application. If
necess.ary, the planning commission shall recommend approval, approval with
modifications, or denial of a concurrent change in zoning to the city council. A
decision to deny the application shall be supported by adopted findings and
conclusions based on .EC 9. 7835 Criteria of Approval for Annexations and , . if
applicablef EC 9.7840 Criteria of Approval. for Chanaes in Zone Concurrent with
Annexations.
(Section 9.7845, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9-427
07/14/2006
Eugene Code
9.7850 Notice of Decision.
(1) A notice of the planning commission's decision shan be mailed within 5 days
of the decision to the applicant and persons 'who requested notice of the
decision.
(2) The notice shall:
(a) Summarize the decision of the planning commiss'ion.
(b) Explaln.the appeal rights.
(Section .9.78501 see chart at front of Chapter 9 for/egis/ative history from 2/26101 through 6/1/02.)
9.7855 Effective Date. Unless appealed, the planning commission's decision to deny an
annexation is final on the 11th day after notice of the decision is mailed.
(Section 9K 7855, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 611/02.)
9.7860 -Appeal of PI ann in a C.ommission Decision to Denv.an Annexation..ADPllcation.
(1) Application FUing. Within 10 days of the date the planning commission's
decision to deny an annexation request is mailed, it may be appealed to the
city council by the owner, applicant, or any person who submitted written or
oral evidence or testimony for consideration in a timely manner during the
planning commission evidentiary hearing who.is adversely affected by the
decision. The appeal shall be made.by filing a statement of issues on appeal
and other information on a form approved by the city manager. , The appeal
shan be based on the record, shall state specifically how the planning
commission falled to properly evaluate the proposed annexation or make a
decision consistent with the criteria for approval, and shan be limited to the
issues raised at the evidentiary hearing and set out in the filed statement of
issues. City staff shaH provide the city council with the recordK
(2) Public Hearing ,Schedule and Notice. Unless the applicant and appellant.
agree. to a longer timeperiodf the city council shall hold a hearing toaUow oral
argument on an appeal within 60-days of its receipt At least 10 days prior to
the hearingt city staffshaU mail notice to the applicant, appellant, and persons
who requested notice of the planning commission decision or city council
hearing.
(3) Decision. Unless the applicant and appellant agree to a longer time period,
the city council shall make a decision within 15day.s of the close of the
hearing. The city council may, by resolution, affirm, reverse, or modify the
planning commission's decision. When a decision is reversed or modified, the
city council shall make findings of fact, based on required criteria, .as to why
the planning commission made an incorrect legal' interpretation.
(4) Notice of Decision.
(a) Within 5 days of the decision1 the city shall mall written notice of the
decision to all of the following:
1. Applicant.
2. Appellant.
3. Any person who requested notice of the city council decision.
(b) The notice shall:
1. Summarize the decision of the city council.
2. Explain the appeal rights.
(Section 9. 7860, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 611/02K)
9-428
07/14/2006
Eugene Code
9.7865 Consideration of Plannina Commission . Recommendation to Aporove
Application.
(1) Public Hearing Schedule. The city council shall hold a nearing concerning
the planning commission recommendation in favor of an annexation and
concurrent change in zone, if necessary, within 60 days of the planning
commission's decision, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period.
(2) Notice of Hearing. At least 10 days before the hearing, notice of the hearing
shan be mailed to the applicant, any person who has submitted written or oral
evidence or testimony in a timely manner in the planning commission
evidentiary hearing, and persons who requested notice of the planning
commission's decision.
(3) Decision. Unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, within 15 days
of the hearing the city counci'l shall by resolution, affirm, reverse, or modify the
planning commission's decision. When a decision is reversed or modifiedf the
city council shall make findings of fact based on required criteria as to.why the
planning commission made an incorrect legal interpretation.
(4) Notice of Decision.
(a) Within 5 days of the decision, the city shall mail written notice of the
decision to all of the following:
1. Applicant.
2. Appellant.
3. Any person who requested notice of the city council decision.
(b) The notice shalt
1. Summarize the decision of the city council.
2. Explain the appeal rights.
(Section 9.7865, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9.7870 City Submittal of CouncUResolutions to. Boundary Com.mission. The city shall
forward city council resolutions approving annexation requests to the lane County
local government boundary commission. The boundary commission has final
authority to effect the annexation under applicable state law.
(Section 9. 7870, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9.7875 Special Service..DistrictWithdrawals. When an annexed area remains within 1 or
more special service districts, and withdrawal from that district is not automatic, the
city council shall decide on withdrawal from those special service districts. The '
withdrawals shall be made according to applicable state statutes goveming the
specific with'drawal.
(Section .9. 7875, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1102.)
9.7880 Limitations on. Refilina of a Denied Application. When an annexation application
is denied, no new application for the same purpose may be filed within 1 year of the
decision date. An exception maybe granted by the planning director, based on a
change in condition.
(Section 9. 7880, see ohart at front of Chapter 9 fOf legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02.)
9.7885
Annexation Procedures for the "Industrial Corridor". Annexation applications
for property in the ftlndustrial Corridor" m.aybe processed according to the
procedures in this section if the special provisions requiring action by the. city council
are applicable. The "Industrial Corridor" is a triangular-shaped area particularly
9-429
07/14/2006
Eugene Code
described in Exhibit A to the Annexation and Urban Services Pollcy Agreement
dated April 25, 1.991. See Map 9.7805 Industrial Corridor.
(1) City Council Public Hearing Schedule and Notice. The planning
commission is not required to conduct a public hearing or forward a
recommendation to the city council. However, a city council public hearing is
required. The city shall schedule and provide notice of the public hearing, according
to EC 9.7815 Publlc.Hearing Schedule and EC 9.7820 Public Hearing Notice.
(2) Staff Rep~rt~nd Public.Hearing Procedures. The .preparation of a staff
report and the conduct of the public hearing shall be done according to EC
9.7825 Staff Investigation and Report. and .EC 9.7830 Public Hearina Conduct
and Procedures with the substitution of city council for planning commission in
every instance.
(3) City Council Decision. Unless the appUca.nt agrees. to a longer time period,
within 15 days of the close of the public hearing., the city council shaUby
resolution recommend approval of an annexation to the boundary commission
or deny the annexation. The city council shall adopt city zoning for the.
property recommended for annexation unless the property automatically
receives the equivalent city zone, according toEC 9.7810 Changes in Zone.
The city council's recommendation to approve an annexation or decision to
change the zone shall be consistent with EC9. 7835 Criteria of Aooroval for
Annexations and EC 9.7840 Criteria of Approval for Chanaes in.Zone
Concurrent with Annexations. A decision. by the city council to deny a.n
annexation is final..
(4) Notice of Decision.
(a) Within 5 days after the city council deci.sion, the city shall mail written
notice of the decision to all of the following:
1. Applicant
2. Property owner.
3. The neighborhood group or community organization officially
recognized by the city that includes the area of the subject
property <<
4. Any person who requested notice of the city council decision.
(b) The notice shall:
1. Summarize. the decision of the city council.
2. Explain the appeal rights.
(5) Other Applicable Procedures. Following the decision of the city council, the
procedures for annexation applications for property in the "Industrial Corridor"
include those in:
(a) EC 9.7855 Effective Date,
(b) EC 9.7860 Appeal of Plannina Commission Decision to Denv an
Annexation Application,
(c) EC 9.7865Cons-ideration.ofPlanning Commission Recommendation to
ApprQveAppllcation,
(d) EC 9.7870 City Submittal of Council Resolutions to Boundarv
Commission.
(Section 9. 7885, see chart at front of Chapter 9 for legislative history from 2/26/01 through 6/1/02;
amended by Ordinance No. 203531' enacted November 28, 2005, effective January 1, 2006.)
9-430
07/14/2006
ATTACHMENTC
LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
POLICIES
CHAPTER 191, DIVISION 030
Policies
191-030-0000 (1) It is the policy of the Commission to reduce the fragmented approach to
the provision of public services. Basis for policy: This policy is based on the Commission~ s
statutory purpose to simplify governmental strncture and on its long-term view of how
governmental structure relates to the economy, efficiency, and equity of urban service provision.
The Commission shall favor general purpose governments over single service governments and
special districts. Where a general purpose government can provide service, the Commission
shall favor the provision by that unit of government rather than creation of another unit of
government The Commission.shall discourage the proliferation of special districts throughout
Lane. County.
(2) It is the policy of the Commission to promote the long term goal of the efficient
provision of public services and the orderly growth of local government boundaries. Basis for
policy: The Commission's statutory direction is to help create and guide the growth of. a
responsive, efficient, and economical governmental structure. In so doing, the Commission
considers~~e timing and phasing of the provision of urban services which may, in the short-term,
result in megular boundaries.
(3) It is the policy of the Commission to provide an impartial forum for the resolution of
local government jurisdictional questions. Basis for policy: The Commission desires to act as a
catalyst to bring about greater long-range planning and coordination of boundary change
processes.
Defmitions
191-030...0010 (1) "Commission" means Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission.
(2)."Ruralland" means those lands which are outside an urban growth boundary.
(3) "Urban" and "urbanizable lands" have the meaning given in the LCDC goals
promulgated .under ORS 197 or, where more specifically defined ill an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, the meaning given in that plan.
(4) "Comprehensive plan" has the meaning given in ORS 197.015(5)
(5) "Public health hazard" has the meaning given in ORS 222.850(5).
(6) "Pre-existing" means prior to the statutory authority provided in ORS 199.
(7) "Ring annexation area" means an unincorporated area intentionally surrounded by a
city which .will receive limited city services from that city and which will be annexed once full
development of the site has occurred.
(8) "Extraterritorial extension'~ means extension of a water or sewer line or facilities
outside a city's or district's boundaries.
(9) "Sphere of influence" means an area of interest beyond the urban growth boundary
which is defmed and designated in some comprehensive plans. ..Within this area, proposed land
use activities and policies must be coordinated by the applicant with the affected city to allow
LCLGBC OAR - Policies
Amended 8/11/88 - Effective 2/7/89
Page 1
opportunity for review and comment prior to submittal of a proposal with the Commission.
(10) "Consistency" has the meaning given the term "compatibility" as defined in the Land
Conservation and Development Commission's (LCDC) administrative rules at OAR 660-030-
0005(5) and (7). It means there are no remaining conflicts between the CommissiQn's land,use
program and, the applicable city or county comprehensive plan and related land use regulations
which have been acknowledged by LCDC.
Policy Implementation
191-030-0020 (1) Within the policy framework outlined 'in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, the Commission shall recognize cities as the logical providers of urban
services for territory within acknowledged urban growth boundaries.
(2) Annexation to cities shall be the method preferred and encourage~ by the Commission
for delivering urban services tourbanizable land. ,
(3) Because the boundary change process is 'inherently incremental, orderly efficient
growth of government service boundaries may require approval of annexations by the
Commission that create seemingly illogical boundaries in the short term. Commission decisions
shall be guided by the ability to provide orderly and timely progression toward a defmed service
boundary rather than the shape and location of public service boundaries.
(4) When studying proposals, the Commission .staff shall prepare an analysis of the
proposal based on the following standards, where applicable. ,When considering proposals,' the
Commission shall consider the following standards. When making its decision, the Commission
shall adopt findings that the applicable standards have been met.
(a) The Commission provides an impartial forum for resQlution of local jurisdictional
questions. In keeping with its role as an impartial fomm, the Commission shall consider the
affect of the boundary change on other units of government
(b) In order to ensure orderly detennination and adjustment of local ,government
boundaries to best m.eet the needs of Lane County, the Commission shall consider alternative
solutions where intergovernmental options are identified and make decisions based on the most
effective long-range option among identified alternatives.
(c) Consistent with acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations and in
order to promote orderly future development, the proposal must dem,onstrate that an 'adequate
level of future and existing services and facilities are available or can be provided in a' timely
manner. An adequate level of' services includes assurance that the quality and quantity of
services can meet existing and future growth. For major boundary changes, there must be
assurance that the proposed unit of government is financially viable.
(d) The comprehensive plan's economic, demographic, and sociological trends and
projections and its environmental policies, pertinent to the proposal, shall be addressed.
(5) Within an urban growth boundary, the Commission shall encourage the provision of an
urban level of public services as identified in a comprehensive plan in a manner consistent with
Commission la\v and policies.
(6) The Commission shall support provision of a rural level of fIre protection and
emergency medical services to all residents of rural Lane County. Individual water supply
systems and on.-site sewage disposal systems are recognized as appropriate levels of service in
most rural areas. COlnmunity water and sewer systems may be approved to serve rural densities
LCLGBC OAR - Policies
Amended 8/11/88 - Effective 2/7/89
Page 2
when.site conditions allow, when the proposed uses are consistent with the Lane County Rural
Comprehensive Plan, and when proposals are consistent with other. Commission standards and
policies.
(7) The Commission shall apply, in order, the following priorities among methods of
servicing urbamzable land when the required level of services identified in a city's
comprehensive plan can be extended by a city:
(a) Annexation to a city;
(b) Extraterritorial extension of city water and sanitary sewer facilities accompanied by a
signed agreement to annex to the appropriate citY;
(c) Intergovernmental agreement between a city and existing special district to provide city
services on a contractual basis;
(d) Annexation to an existing special district with district selVices provided;
(e) Extraterritorial extension of district water or sewer facilities under the conditions of
implementing policy #13;
(f) Fonnatlonofa new unit ofgovemment.
(8) The Commission recognizes that unique circumstances may necessitate annexation by
special districts within an urban growth boundary as an interim service delivery solution. Unless
expressly allowed in the comprehensive plan, the Commission shall approve annexations in such
cases only where the following criteria can be met:
(a) Immediate annexation to a city is not feasible because the city is not capable of
providing urban level services in an orderly and timely manner. However, it is recognized that
urban services will eventually be provided by a city;
(b) The proposed interim solution is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan
policies; and
(c) The proposal is for an interim service delivery solution. and there are legal instruments
in place to ensure that annexation to an existing city occurs. .
(9) The Commission shall recognize the high priority of approving annexations to an
existing city of developed, urbamzable land contiguous to that city's boundaries. Unless
prohibited. by local comprehensive plan policies, tbe Commission shall approve non-contiguous
annexations to an existing city within an urban growth boundary, provided the required level of
urban services can be extended in an orderly and timely manner.
(10) The Commission shall not approve l:lnnexation of. territory to a city outside an
acknowledged urban growth boundary. Annexation of territory to a city maybe approved by the
Commissiqn outside an urban growth boundary only when the urban growth boundary is
modified by a city's comprehensive plan amendment process to include the area proposed. for
annexation.
(11) The Commission shall approve the extraterritorial extension of water .or sanitary
sewer service by a city or district within an urban growth boundary under any of the following
conditions:
(a) To alleviate a declared public health hazard on property whicll does not otherwise meet
city and Commission annexation standards for annexable land; or
(b) To accommodate the development of sanitary sewer or water systems in a manner
consistent with adopted comprehensive plans, adopted public facilities plans, facilities master
system plans, and capital improvement programs; or
LCLGBC OAR - Policies
Amended 8/11/88 - Effective 2/7/8.9
Page 3
(c) To serve non-contiguous city territory; or .
(d) To extend services to "ring" annexation areas where a full range of city services will be
extended in conjunction with phased development; or
(e) To extend services in accordance with pre-existing intergovernmental agreements or
contracts, or with other legal requirements (e.g., with an approved plan of dissolution).
(12) When water or sewer service is extended to property beyond city boundaries, the city
shall require that the property owner( s ) agree in writing to annex to the appropriate city when the
required level of services can be extended to the territory.
(13) When water service is extended beyond district boundaries, the Commission shall
encourage the district to secure an agreement, where appropriate, from the property owner(s) to
ensure annexation to the district occurs in a timely manner. If the property is within an urban
growth boundary, the special district shall require consent in writing, when required by an
acknowledged comprehensive plan, from the property owner(s) to .annex to the appropria~e city
prior to receiving an extraterritorial extension of district water service.
(14) Outside an urban growth boundary, the Commission shall approve extraterritorial
extension of city water or sanitary sewer service under any of the following conditions:
(a) To extend services in accordance with. pre-existing intergovernmental agreements. or
contracts; or
(b) To extend service in accordance with an approved plan of dissolution; or
(c) To extend services where specifically provided for by comprehensive plan policies; or
(d) To alleviate a declared public health hazard which does not otherwise meet city and
Commission standards for annexation;. or
(e) To fulfill any other legal requirements for service9
(15) In order to provide more efficient provision of rural fire protection, the Commission
shall favor annexations to existingmral fire protection districts over proposals to create new
districts. When territory is within a reasonable servicing distance .of an existing fire district, the
Commission shall require evidence that annexation is not feasible prior to allowing formation of
a new district
(16) The Commission shall approve the merger and consolidation of cities and special
districts when such actions.would create a more efficient, economical unit of government and a
less fragmented method of service.
(17) Prior to formation of a new community water system, the Commission shall require
evidence that existing sources (existing cities, water districts or community water systems) are
unable to service the subject territory. When existing sources can provide service, the
Commission shall require use of existing sources rather than formation of a new system. The
Commission shall not support creation of a community water system within an urban growth
boundary unless allowed by comprehensive plan policies.
(18) Prior to approving creation of a community water system, the Commission .shall
require evidence of sanitary sewage treatment methods consistent with the proposed level of
water service.
(19) Boundaries for an incorporation or formation proposal. shall be dictated by the
capacity of the proposed unit of governm.ent to provide public services in an efficient, timely
manner. As necessary, the Commission. shall modify proposals to maintain consistency with
comprehensive plan directives, Commission policies and standards, and for the purpose of
LCLGBC OAR - Policies
Amended 8/11/88 - Effective 2/7/89
Page 4
making a more logical government service boundary.
(20) When annexation of territory to a city substantially erodes the fmancial base of a
special district, the Commission shall encourage the use of intergovernmental agreements
between the city and affected district, and merger or consolidation of existing special districts to
maintain the quantity and quality of services to the remaining district territory.
(21) When a proposed city incorporation would substantially reduce the financial base and
service ability of a special district, the Commission shall require documentation that methods. of
maintaining an adequate quality an.d. quantity of service to .the.remaining district territory ha\'e
been discussed by proponents .and the affected district. The resolution of such issues shall be
addressed in the economic feasibility study.
(22) While the Commission has authority to initiate boundary changes, the Commission
recommends that proposals be initiated by a city, district, property owner or registered. voter
method prior to exercising Commission authority to initiate a boundary change.
(23) The Commission encourages the use of the property owner "triple-majority" method
formally initiated. by city or district resolution for initiating annexation proposals.
(24) Extraterritorial.extension of water or sanitary sewer service made in accordance with
an approved plan of dissolution shall not be subject to Commission review.
(25) To adopt a final order approving a boundary change proposal, the Commission must
find that the proposal complies with the statewide planning goals and is consistent with the
applicable acknowledged comprehensive plans and land use regulations as provided in the
Commission's State Agency Coordination (SAC) Program, which is hereby adopted by
reference. Failure of the proposal to be found in compliance with the statewide planning goals
or to be consistent "tith the acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations will
result in denial of the proposal by the Commission.
LCBC:LCOG: \\CLSRVll 1 \LGS\BC\AlvlvU4L\RULES\POLICIES RULE, FOR Pl.IBLIC,DOC
Last Saved: January 28. 2004
LCLGBCOAR - Policies
Amended 8/11/88 - Effective 2/7/89
Page 5
ATTACHMENT D
City Manager’s Office
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
M
Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793
EMORANDUM
(541) 682-5010
(541) 682-5414 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date:
March 30, 2006
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
James R. Carlson, 682-5524
Assistant City Manager
Subject:CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT RESPONSE: STREET ANNEXATIONS
Councilor Ortiz requested an explanation of why the City annexes streets, in response to public testimony
by Rob Handy, chairperson of the River Road Community Organization, on March 13, 2006.
The short answer is that cities are the logical providers of urban services and most urban services are
provided on, under, or via the street right-of-way.
It is important to recognize that the City’s practices related to street annexations apply citywide. There is
increased impact and awareness in the River Road and Santa Clara areas because that is where the
majority of annexations to Eugene occur, and where the fragmented city limits pattern increases the need
for coherent services within the street rights-of-way.
Street right-of way is essential to the delivery of urban services. Many urban services and facilities are
provided within the street rights-of-way in addition to transportation services, such as water, wastewater
collection, stormwater, cable and other communication networks, fire hydrants and street lights.
Emergency service providers also operate within the rights-of-way, including police and fire and
emergency medical service.
Currently, all annexations of private property are initiated by the property owner, usually because of a
desire to divide the property into multiple development sites, build or start a new use on the property, or
request services that only the city can provide. The City reviews each annexation application and, based
on the circumstances, recommends to either the applicant or the Boundary Commission whether the City
is requesting the inclusion of segments of street. The Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission makes the final decision on all annexations.
Regulatory Framework
The basis of the City’s street annexation recommendations stem from fundamental principles and policies
contained in the Eugene-Springfield Metro Plan:
The Metro Plan is based on the premise that Eugene and Springfield, the two existing cities, are
the logical providers of services accommodating urban levels of development within the UGB. [River
Road and Santa Clara areas are located within the Eugene UGB.]
To effectively control the potential for urban sprawl and scattered urbanization, compact growth
and the urban (UGB) service area concepts are, and will remain, the primary growth management
techniques for directing geographic patterns of urbanization in the community. In general, this means the
filling in of vacant and underutilized lands, as well as redevelopment inside the UGB.
The Metro Plan and most of its elements are oriented to and require that urban development
occur in a compact configuration within a prescribed urban service area.
Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a
city when it is found that:
a. A minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area in an
orderly and efficient manner.
b. There will be a logical area and time within which to deliver urban services and
facilities. Conversion of urbanizable land to urban shall also be consistent with the Metro Plan.
Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the highest priority.
Ultimately, land within the urban growth boundary shall be annexed to a city and provided the
required minimum level of urban services. While the time frame for annexation may vary, annexation
should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to urban.
The Metro Plan also contains policies that require the annexation of properties to the city if new development is
proposed or new demand to city services are requested.
Urban Transition Intergovernmental Agreements
In 1986, the cities of Eugene and Springfield entered into Urban Transition Agreements with Lane
County that transferred from the County to the cities administration for building and land use within the
urbanizable portion of the UGB, transferred Lane County-owned parks to the cities and entered into an
agreement related to roads. The purpose of the transfer of administration of building and land use was to
allow for a consistent urban form, and to find efficiencies in administration. The road agreement formed
the basis of the current City-County Road Partnership agreement. The agreements require the cities to
ask for the transfer of County roads to City jurisdiction. Many miles of roads which had been previously
included in annexations were transferred to the cities.
All intergovernmental agreements between the City and County since then have recognized that roads
would be annexed and that the City would request and the County would approve the transfer of
jurisdiction to the City. Ultimately, all of the county roads inside the urban growth boundary (with the
exception of Delta Highway) would be annexed and become the responsibility of the City.
The Metro Plan requires all new development to occur within cities. Therefore, annexation of properties within
the UGB is the preferred method of allowing development to occur in a manner consistent with the adopted
Metro Plan policies. It is the City of Eugene’s practice (and Metro Plan policy) to pursue only voluntary
annexations of private property where possible. There is a long history of noncontiguous annexations in the River
Road and Santa Clara areas because noncontiguous annexations allow individual properties to develop without
the need to annex other properties involuntarily.
Why annex streets?
It is the City’s practice to request inclusion of appropriate and logical public street segments with annexation
proposals. This practice has evolved over the years, in part, because by not doing so created an even worse
patchwork of disconnected street segments. The practice of annexing appropriate and logical public street
segments aids in the delivery of urban services to incorporated properties, is a logical part of the transition from
County and Special District to City services within the UGB, and simplifies the development review process
(e.g., only one set of standards will apply for the applicant, only one government from which to obtain permits,
etc.).
Service Impacts of Street Annexations
Transportation
?
The primary reason for annexing streets for the transportation system is ultimately for
increased maintenance efficiency. Lane County and the City have an excellent road
maintenance agreement which describes services being provided by both parties and splits up
the entire UGB (not just River Road and Santa Clara) based on road miles which have been
annexed to even out the costs to both parties. However, the maintenance agreement does not
resolve all issues which are ultimately resolved by having a single jurisdiction responsible for
the street system. For example, on county roads in Santa Clara, the County issues all facility
permits in the roadway including access to the City’s water and wastewater lines. It is easier
to coordinate traffic signals along a road (e.g. River Road) if all of the signals are in the city.
The City provides a higher level of service for some road related services such as sidewalk
hazard abatement and street tree and median maintenance.
Water Service
?
EWEB has intergovernmental transition agreements with River Road and Santa Clara Water
Districts. EWEB provides essentially all services related to the water supply system for the
two districts that do not have staff of their own. Prior to annexation, EWEB is required to get
written approval for any repair or other service performed in excess of $1000. The two water
districts are reluctant to approve repairs to their water system and often do not respond to
requests from EWEB. This results in inefficiency and redundant review. After annexation to
the City, water service and maintenance to the annexed area becomes the responsibility of
EWEB upon the next regular billing date. Street lights and fire hydrants become the property
of the City.
Wastewater System
?
The City owns, operates and maintains the wastewater system in the River Road and Santa
Clara area based on provisions in the Metro Plan and previous action by the Boundary
Commission allowing extraterritorial extension of this service. However, in the Santa Clara
area, the City or a developer is required to get a Lane County facility permit if it is necessary
to work within a county road. After annexation, the City requests transfer of jurisdiction of
the street. Once Lane County has transferred jurisdiction, the City issues all facility permits
resulting in a more efficient development process.
Stormwater System
?
Lane County Public Works is responsible for the stormwater system associated with county
roads but not for facilities outside the right-of-way. The City stormwater system is more
comprehensive. Overall, the stormwater needs to be managed as a functioning system. Lane
County and the City have an intergovernmental agreement to coordinate the development of
the NPDES Phase II permit for the River Road and Santa Clara area. Annexation of streets
shifts the responsibility for the stormwater system from Lane County to the City. The City is
better equipped to handle stormwater issues through its stormwater utility system.
Emergency Services
?
Police services and fire and emergency medical services are often provided within the right-
of-way, for example when there is an automobile accident. The computer-aided dispatch system
has the ability to recognize whether site addresses are inside or outside the city limits and
therefore who the appropriate responder is for a particular call. Calls referring to the right-of-way
are more difficult and therefore it is important that logical street segments or the entirety of streets
are inside the city to make it easier to dispatch the correct units.
The transfer of fire hydrants to the City as the result of the annexation and subsequent
withdrawal from the water districts also enables a more efficient means of maintaining and
testing the hydrants.
What street segments are requested for annexation?
In reviewing an annexation application, the City considers several factors, including the following to determine
whether to request the addition of street segments:
1. Is the street segment appropriate and logical?
2. Does the street segment abut the subject site? To facilitate development of a site, streets
providing immediate access to site should be annexed. On corner lots both streets are considered.
3. Does the street segment have logical ends, preferably street intersections? Typically the segment
should be at least one block long.
4. Does the annexation help police or fire and emergency medical response or avoid confusion?
5. Would the street segment improve access to the development site along a logical network of city
streets? Are City standards for speed, access, or connectivity preferred near the development
site? If so, annexation of an entire street length will be considered.
6. Look for opportunities to provide logical service connections between separate incorporated areas
(e.g., an unincorporated street should not be the only separation between two city areas). Street
segments that will provide improved access and more seamless services to more than one
incorporated area would be recommended.
Summary
While recognizing that current annexation procedures in River Road and Santa Clara create certain short-
term issues, the overall process is logical if viewed from the premise that the River Road and Santa Clara
areas will eventually annex entirely to the City, as planned in the Metro Plan.
The Metro Plan generally anticipates that all lands within the Urban Growth Boundary will eventually be served
by the City, that the City will eventually provide all services. Annexation of appropriate and logical public street
segments helps knit together the “Swiss cheese” effect of long-term individual noncontiguous annexations into a
recognizable pattern that helps provide better, more consistent transportation, utilities, and emergency services
for growing urban areas.
Please contact me at 682-5524 or via e-mail (james.r.carlson@ci.eugene.or.us) if you have questions or
need additional information.
ATTACHMENT E
City Manager’s Office
City of Eugene
777 Pearl Street, Room 105
M
Eugene, Oregon 97401-2793
EMORANDUM
(541) 682-5010
(541) 682-5414 FAX
www.eugene-or.gov
Date:
September 14, 2006
To:
Mayor Piercy and City Council
From:
Dennis M. Taylor, 682-5510
Assistant City Manager
Subject:CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT RESPONSE: CLARIFY AND EXPLAIN REASON
BEHIND CITY’S PRACTICE OF DOING STREET ANNEXATIONS
Attached to this memo is the March 30, 2006, memorandum responding to a previous question about
street annexations. That memo contains information regarding the regulatory framework, urban transition
intergovernmental agreements, why the City annexes streets, and the service impacts of street
annexations. In summary, the March 30 memo explains that cities are the logical providers of urban
services and most urban services are provided on, under, or via the street right-of-way. The Metro Plan
generally anticipates that all lands within the urban growth boundary will eventually be served by the
City. Annexation of appropriate and logical public street segments enables the City to provide better,
more consistent transportation, utilities, and emergency services for growing urban areas.
This memo will attempt to describe the process that City staff uses to determine which street segments to
request for inclusion in annexations being considered by the Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission.
Essentially, all annexations to the City of Eugene being processed by the Lane County Local Government
Boundary Commission are initiated by the property owner and submitted directly to the Boundary
Commission. These are considered to be voluntary annexations. City staff reviews each annexation
request separately, prior to it being submitted to the Boundary Commission, to ensure that the property
meets the requirements for annexation (e.g. inside the urban growth boundary, services can be provided).
As a part of that review, City staff looks at any streets abutting the subject property to determine whether
it would be appropriate to request the inclusion of right-of-way with the application. The Boundary
Commission statutes do not require any jurisdictional approvals to add right-of-way to an annexation
request. The City does request comments from other jurisdictions, especially Eugene Water & Electric
Board (EWEB) and Lane County, to determine what services are provided via the right-of-way and
whether there is any concern related to the inclusion of right-of-way in the proposal. City staff also met
recently with Lane County and EWEB staff to determine whether annexation of right-of-way is supported
by these agencies and determined that it is supported.
The priorities for inclusion are arterial and collector streets where there are already significant properties
within the City abutting the street. These streets have the most traffic and are the routes used most
frequently by police and fire services. (Recent examples would be portions of Coburg Road, Royal
Avenue, River Road, Irvington Road, Spring Creek Drive, Scenic Drive, River Loop 1 and River Loop 2,
Park Avenue, and N. Park Avenue)
On arterials and collectors, staff looks at including whole blocks (i.e., intersection to intersection), several
blocks or the entirety of the street within the urban growth boundary to make it clear which sections of
streets are in the city. This improves the ability of all service providers to determine who is responsible
for maintenance of infrastructure and delivery of services.
On local streets, we focus on streets where a significant amount of front-footage is adjacent to properties
already in the city. We would look at the streets which provide access to the subject property where
annexation would result in efficiencies in the development permitting process and service delivery areas.
We still believe that annexation of whole blocks is more logical than annexing only the portion of the
street immediately adjacent to the subject property. We might include less than a block if the property is
adjacent to the existing city limits and annexation of a segment of street would expand the contiguous
area of the city. We only request the inclusion of the full width of streets because annexing less than the
full width causes numerous service delivery problems.
The Metro Plan contains a policy specifying that the urban growth boundary is located on the outside of
any street right-of-way, which leads to the recommendation of including perimeter streets so as not to
leave a narrow “gap” between the city limit and urban growth boundary where public services are
provided.
There has been an average of 28 annexations per year since 2000 (195 total) with the majority of these
occurring in the River Road and Santa Clara area. The City requested the inclusion of street right-of-way
in about half of these annexations. The Boundary Commission approved all but three of these requests.
2
ATTACHMENT F
May 3, 2006
To Eugene City Council, Mayor Piercy, Lane County Boundary
Commission, and the Lane County Commissioners;
We, the board of directors of the Santa Clara Community
Organization are writing to inform you of our position on street
annexations in our community. SeeD represents both city reside,nts
and non-city residents in Santa Clara. More than 500/0 are non-city
residents. We feel that the City's present policy of tacking on street
annexations is systematically placing those residents at risk of
island annexation and leaving them without adequate voice in their
future.
It is the city of Eugene's stated practice and the Metro Plan's
policy to pursue only voluntary annexations of private property
where possible. However, the current practice of extended street
annexations presently and potentially creates islands of
unincorporated residents who fear that should Eugene's practices
change, they will be forcibly annexed.
9. If my property becomes an island of unincorporated property, does
something change?
Yes. By current state law, the City can initiate annexation of those properties in an
unincorporated island. In other words, the City could ask the Boundary
Commission to approve an annexation of the island. The Boundary Commission
will provide a public hearing where anybody can testify before taking deciding.
(From city of Eugene's Annexation FAQ)
The Urban Services Committee Report and SUbsequently the
Transition Team's work have repeatedly stressed the importance of
the themes EQUITY, TRUST, VOICE AND COLLABORATION for a
healthier relationship between the city and the residents of Santa
Clara. The systematic islanding of unincorporated residents runs
contrary to these principles, and only serves to heighten the
tensions between the city and our community.
We understand that the city views itself as the eventual, logical
provider of services in our area. However presently we cannot see
that patchwork provisi>on of urban services is significantly im.proved
through street annexations. Given that th>e city of Eugene is already
over 100 milliondoUars behind in street repairs it seems illogical to
take on a larger share of street maintenance.
To date, we are unaware of a city policy that requires only city
streets provide access and utilities to properties within the city
limits. Indeed, current infill development in our area uses private
roads to access new subdivisions. In light of this, the answer to the
FAQ below seems inconsistent with current city practices. In
addition, the statement below regarding city streets providing
access to properties within the city limits addresses only part of the
issue. These same streets provide access and utilities for county
residents. City limits are the property line of each annexed parcel,
not the entire neighborhood into which a property gets annexed.
6. Why does the City look for logical and appropriate street segments to
annex?
Since the Metro Plan says that all lands inside the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary
will probably some day be part of the city, it makes sense to have city streets
provide access and utilities to properties within the city limits. Having streets
within the city limits allows the city greater control over water and sewer line
extension and repair, addition of bicycle lane and sidewalks, traffic speed control,
and traffic enforcement.
The current practice of superfluous street annexation (the
annexation of streets not directly adjacent to the property being
annexed) seems to be a clear case of the cart before the horse. The
city of Eugene is not provid>ing services to the majority of residents
out here, yet seems .to be attempting to control service provision
and possibly future governance through street annexatio<n.
Although the city residents in Santa Clara do deserve city services,
it is not at all clear that the street annexation policies improve the
services they receive. The advantages to the city residents in Santa
Clara presently do not outweigh the potential disadvantages to the
non-city residents.
We need to consider all of the residents of our community as we
plan for the future. We hope the city of Eugene will work with us in
a positive and collaborative way on community visioning and
planning. When the city of Eugene and the residents of this area
reach an a.greement about the why, how and/or when of
annexation, that would be the time to consider wholesale street
annexation. Until such time, we req.uest that the current practice of
superfluous street annexation cease.
Respectfully submitted,
The board of the SCCO
August 1, 2006
Mayor Piercy and Eugene City Council
777 Pearl St.
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Mayor Piercy and City Councilors,
The board of the River Road Community Organization asks the City of Eugene halt the
practice of extended street annexations in our River Road neighborhood.
It is the City's stated practice to pursue only voluntary annexations of private property
where possible. The Metro Plan also states "In each case, Eugene will make every
attempt to provide for annexation only on a voluntary basis…" [Metro Plan page II-F-4,
policy 3].
Yet, City staff have recently adopted a practice of asking the Boundary Commission to
approve annexation of street segments that go far beyond the boundaries of properties
applying for voluntary annexation. In some cases, these annexations result in
immediate creation of small or large "islands" of other unannexed properties. In other
cases, annexing long segments of streets sets up the formation of additional "islands" in
a next round of street annexations. By current state law, the City can initiate forced
annexation of properties in such an island without the consent of individual property
owners or a majority vote of the affected residents.
As City staff acknowledge, the practice of extended street annexations is controversial
with property owners in River Road and Santa Clara, many of whom believe the City is
creating islands in order to involuntarily annex them in coming years.
Staff claim that extended street annexations are needed to improve delivery of certain
services, primarily police and fire emergency response and certain road maintenance
and water and stormwater functions. We do not find their arguments convincing or
compelling, and address the details in a separate attachment. Instead, this practice
seems to be a step away from the City's stated practice and Metro Plan policy of
voluntary annexations only.
Although the City may be the "logical" and ultimate service provider in our area, other
interim or permanent options (retention or consolidation or merger of independent
2
service districts, or creation of a new City) are not ruled out by the Metro Plan (II-C-5
and 6, policies 15, 19 and 20; pg. II-F-5, policy 6). For now, a large majority of River
Road residents receive a satisfactory level of urban services from Lane County and
perfectly functional independent service districts. City staff acknowledge that most of
the problems associated with piecemeal annexation have been solved satisfactorily at
this time: "contractual arrangements among service providers smooth out the
irregularities caused by the incremental annexation process" [Boundary Commission
staff notes, April 6, 2006 meeting].
Instead, street annexations are depriving "islanded" residents of a right they would
otherwise retain--the right to vote on any future annexation--and alarming other
residents that they will lose this right soon.
Many residents of unincorporated areas are reacting with hostility to what they view as
aggressive and hostile action by the City. This is unfortunate at a time when RRCO is
hoping to embark on a community visioning and planning process and a more positive
dialog about annexation and transition options.
We urge the City Council to establish a City policy and direct the City Manager to cease
the practice of extended street annexations and creation of "islands" of unincorporated
residents. Residents of unincorporated River Road, still a significant majority of
residents in our area, deserve to be able to vote before being annexed to the City and
having their existing and functional independent service districts dissolved. Just
because the City does not forcibly annex such islands immediately is not the issue.
Residents DO experience a change in legal status when they are "islanded", as
acknowledged in the City's FAQ Annexation in Eugene (March 2006).
The ongoing dialog with the City about the services and standards that are appropriate
for our area (stormwater services, road maintenance and street design standards, infill
standards, etc.) should be allowed to continue without the overlay of hostility in reaction
to aggressive action by the City that reduces the legal rights and options of area
residents.
Sincerely,
RRCO Board members Becky Riley, Rob Handy, Mara Wile, Kate Kelly, Teresa
Damron, Marilyn Mohr, Jan Spencer, Eileen Nittler
cc: Eugene City Manager Dennis Taylor, Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson, Paula
Taylor (for Boundary Commission)
RRCO response to City staff claims for why street annexations are being undertaken
Thanks to the intergovernmental agreement of 1987 regarding transfer of land use authority from
the County to the City, there is now a checkerboard of City and County jurisdiction in our area.
City staff claim that extended street annexations are being undertaken for various reasons--
primarily to improve provision of emergency services, road maintenance, and water and
stormwater services to this checkerboard of properties in this area.
RRCO finds these arguments neither convincing nor compelling.
Emergency Services
City staff admit that it is not an issue for computer-aided dispatchers to recognize whether specific
addresses are within the City or County and send appropriate emergency personnel. However,
they claim it is more difficult to track the jurisdiction of street segments and send "correct"
emergency personnel to emergencies in the street right-of-way, or to deal efficiently with incidents
that "spill over" from a property to an abutting street (or vice-versa) when the street may be in a
different jurisdiction than the property. They say that street annexations will allow the City to
provide a "higher level of emergency services from the police and fire departments to incidents
occurring in the road rights-of-way" [March 30, 2006 Memo from Jim Carlson to Mayor and Council
on Street Annexations].
A memo from emergency services personnel submitted by the City to the Boundary Commission,
while asserted to show that extended street annexations would help emergency personnel respond
and deliver services to emergencies in road right-of-ways, instead supports the reverse conclusion.
First, the memo notes that finding the correct jurisdiction can be challenging, especially in street right-
of-ways. But then it offers an example of a situation involving a county address near a county-
jurisdiction intersection, and notes that assuming that the County is the correct emergency responder
is false because the street segment has been annexed to the City. It seems clear that the
annexation of the segment of street in this example, done without annexation of all the properties and
intersections along it, is largely what has created the confusion rather than resolved it.
Indeed, the memo goes on to state (emphasis ours): "For public safety response concerns
(especially police), whether a street segment ROW is annexed or not, doesn't help much unless all
the addresses on both sides of the segment and the included intersections are also annexed.
Fire/EMS has less of a problem because of mutual aid agreements..." [Memo from Jim Henry,
Emergency Services Coordinator, March 26, 2006, in Boundary Commission packet]. Thus,
emergency personnel themselves believe that the mutual aid agreements have solved the
problems substantially for Fire/EMS services, and annexing extended street segments wouldn't
help much with police response since the City is NOT annexing all the properties along the
annexed street segments.
The idea that extended street annexations will somehow help reduce the number of accidents or
incidents that "spill over" from a County jurisdiction property or street to a City-jurisdiction property
RRCO attachment to 8/01/06 letter re: street annexations—page 2
or street, seems illogical. If anything, the potential for a "spill over" incident to involve two different
jurisdictions seems greater if longer lengths of streets are annexed to the City. There are still more
County-jurisdiction properties than City-jurisdiction properties in the area, so if more street
segments are annexed, more County properties will abut the newly-annexed city street segments.
Road Maintenance/Sidewalks/Traffic Signals
City staff acknowledge that there is an "excellent" road maintenance agreement between Lane
County and Eugene. However, staff claim that street annexations enable the City to provide a
higher level of service to residents for "sidewalk hazard abatement and street tree and median
maintenance" and also, "easier addition of bike lanes and sidewalks", "coordination of traffic
signals", and "increased maintenance efficiency". [From City of Eugene's FAQ Annexations in
Eugene (March 2006) and March 30, 2006 Memo from Jim Carlson to Mayor and Council on Street
Annexations].
Of course, there are few sidewalks in our neighborhood, and many residents would like to keep it
that way. Thus, easier addition of City-standard sidewalks is not necessarily a desired upgrade of
service. There are also no medians in our arterials, despite considerable public support for those.
Two new pedestrian refuges were just installed in River Road, but we could not get the City to
landscape them because of cost and maintenance issues. While we are happy to get the refuges,
we certainly did not get the impression that the City can provide a "high level" of street tree and
median maintenance even though these sections of River Road are under City jurisdiction.
Also, the fact that Maxwell Road was in City jurisdiction did not result in medians or replanting of
street trees at the time it was upgraded to City standards. More recently, the City removed
significant trees along River Ave. over objections of area residents, and then later waived
replanting requirements when non-resident commercial property owners along part of the road
complained about the maintenance responsibility. The City quickly agreed to eliminate the re-
planting requirement, rather than step up to take on the maintenance that could have
accommodated replacement of the trees that the City had removed.
Thus, it is hard for us to believe that annexation of street segments will result in a higher level of tree
and median maintenance. Instead, we fear that under City control, existing mature street trees--that
offer much benefit and do not require much maintenance--will face threat of removal as streets are
required to be widened, and may not even be replaced due to maintenance and cost issues.
As for maintenance of road surfaces themselves, it seems clear that annexation by the City of
unincorporated streets will effectively reduce the level of road maintenance relative to the
standards many in our neighborhood think are more environmentally responsible and appropriate
for our neighborhood. The City's current policies require that roads be "upgraded" to City
standards, including curb, gutter, storm sewers and sidewalks, prior to any resurfacing. The
County maintains streets in our area with simple overlays--keeping road surfaces in better repair at
less cost, and leaving roads that are compatible with neighborhood character and our natural
stormwater drainage system. We want the City to develop new street standards for our area and a
new maintenance policy before any additional street annexations are initiated. Annexation of
streets before such a policy is in place is likely to lead to those streets falling into disrepair in the
same way that City streets are in other neighborhoods-- Riverview, Crest Drive, and others--where
a majority of residents object to the City standards because of their harmful impacts to street trees
and abutting properties. The City's current policy of annexation of extended street segments in our
neighborhood creates the ironic situation where annexed residents, while paying higher City taxes,
are likely to experience degraded street conditions.
RRCO attachment to 8/01/06 letter re: street annexations—page 3
Besides a single light on Maxwell, River Road is the only street in our neighborhood with traffic
signals, and thus where coordination of signals is an issue. Since River Road and Maxwell are
already under City jurisdiction, we do not see how annexation of segments of other streets will
have any effect on coordination of traffic signals.
Stormwater and sewer line extension and repair
City staff say [March 30, 2006 Memo from Jim Carlson to Mayor and Council on Street
Annexations]: "Stormwater needs to be managed as a functioning system. The City's stormwater
system is more comprehensive (than Lane County's). The City is better equipped to handle
stormwater issues through its stormwater utility system." They also say street annexations allow
the City greater control over sewer line extension and repair [City of Eugene's FAQ Annexations in
Eugene (March 2006)].
In fact, there is very little City stormwater infrastructure system (e.g., storm sewer pipes) in the River
Road neighborhood. Instead, the stormwater system is a dispersed one, based on drywells, ditches,
and natural infiltration through soils--unconnected to the city's "comprehensive" system. Many
residents want to retain this "country-style" drainage and avoid connection to the City's piped system
to preserve neighborhood character. Dispersed systems are also coming into favor with our
environmental agencies due to their ability to reduce runoff and pollution of our surface waters. It
would be very costly to area residents and all City taxpayers to replace this dispersed system with a
system of pipes and curbs and gutters. As the City acknowledges, Lane County and the City are
cooperating under an intergovernmental agreement to develop a stormwater Basin Plan for River
Road-Santa Clara--as with other services and governmental functions, management of stormwater is
being handled adequately under current agreements between the City and County. Personnel from
both jurisdictions have indicated an intent to retain the dispersed stormwater system in our area to
the extent possible. Thus, it is not at all obvious that the City is "better equipped" to take control of
stormwater management here, since it is handled very differently than in the rest of the City (and
more like the way it is handled elsewhere in the County).
The City already operates and maintains the wastewater system throughout River Road, via the
Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission created by intergovernmental agreement
between Eugene, Springfield and Lane County. According to the River Road-Santa Clara Fiscal
Analysis (Oct. 2004) by EcoNorthwest, "Complete annexation of River Road and Santa Clara
would have no impact on the delivery of wastewater services as the City of Eugene currently
collects and treats wastewater from the entire area." We have seen no evidence that extension
and repair of sewer lines is a problem that has not been handled under current agreements.
Water Service and Water Line Extension and Repair
The City wants greater control over water line extension and repair, saying the two existing
independent water districts are reluctant to approve repairs done by EWEB. [March 30, 2006
Memo from Jim Carlson to Mayor and Council on Street Annexations]. However, as far as we
know, the River Road water district is providing an adequate level of services to the unincorporated
residents who have elected to create and sustain it. It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the
City to take over water services or take ownership of the water pipes owned by the independent
water district without the agreement of the residents who have formed the district. If the City has
problems with the current arrangement, these could be solved via a re-negotiated agreement with
the water district about compensation for use of the district's water lines and access to those lines
for maintenance work.