HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 9-9-19 MeetingSeptember 9, 2019, Meeting
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 9, 2019
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of September 9, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Greg Evans Chris Pryor Mike Clark Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. PUBLIC FORUM
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of City Council Minutes
o July 8, 2019, Work Session
o July 8, 2019, Meeting
o July 10, 2019, Work Session
o July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session
o July 15, 2019, Public Hearing
o July 17, 2019, Work Session
o July 22, 2019, Work Session
o July 22, 2019, Meeting
o July 24, 2019, Work Session
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
C. Adoption of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene
(Assessor’s Map 17-04-25-21, Tax Lot 3200, Located at 112 and 114
Hansen Lane)(City File: Craig and Holly Kohler; A 19-3)
D. Adoption of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene
(Assessor’s Map 17-04-02-42, Tax Lot 402; Located 187 Swain Lane)
(City File: Therrell, Mathew; A 19-2)
September 9, 2019, Meeting
E. Adoption of a Resolution Annexing Rights-of-Way to the City of Eugene
(Sections of: Harvey Avenue; Maynard Avenue from River Road West:
Hatton Avenue West to Parnell Drive: Manzana Street from Howard
South: and Evergreen Drive from Howard Avenue South to Rosetta
Avenue.) (Hatton Annexation; A 19-4)
The Eugene City Council welcomes your interest in these agenda items. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast later in the week. El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010, or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 1
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Public Forum Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 1 Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Beth Forrest
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5882
ISSUE STATEMENT This segment allows citizens the opportunity to express opinions and provide information to the council. Testimony presented during the Public Forum should be on city-related issues and should not address items which have already been heard by a Hearings Official or are on the present agenda as a public hearing item.
SUGGESTED MOTION No action is required; this is an informational item only.
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 541-682-5882 Staff E-Mail: bforrest@eugene-or.gov
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Beth Forrest
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5882
ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council minutes.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes for the work sessions on July 8, July 10, July 15, July 17, July 22, and July 24, 2019; the meetings on July 8 and July 22, 2019; and the public hearing on July 15, 2019.
ATTACHMENTS A. July 8, 2019, Work Session B. July 8, 2019, Meeting C. July 10, 2019, Work Session D. July 15, 2019, Joint Work Session E. July 15, 2019, Public Hearing F. July 17, 2019, Work Session G. July 22, 2019, Work Session H. July 22, 2019, Meeting I. July 24, 2019, Work Session
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 541-682-5882 Staff E-Mail: bforrest@eugene-or.gov
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 8, 2019 Page 1
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 8, 2019
5:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Yeh, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Greg Evans, Claire Syrett (via conference phone), Alan Zelenka Councilor Taylor opened the July 8, 2019, work session of the Eugene City Council in Mayor Vinis’ absence.
1.Committee Reports and Items of InterestCouncil Discussion:
o Councilor Evans - shared information about his recent experience at the National League ofCities’ summer meeting and the group’s upcoming report on affordable housing.
o Councilor Semple: announced that there are two new bathrooms coming soon thanks to therecent budget allocation, noting the Overpark garage bathrooms have new signage and willbe monitored hourly.
o Councilor Taylor - shared complaints she’s received about the speed bumps in the Overparkgarage; attended the National League of Cities’ summer meeting and learned about a foodrecycling program in Indianapolis; attended the recent Livable Cities Conference where shelearned about a day center for homeless residents in Madison, Wisconsin; wanted to knowwhat could be done to fight implementation of House Bill 2001.
o Councilor Clark - requested a work session to talk about HB 2001 in detail.
Councilor Zelenka joined the meeting at 5:46 p.m.
2.WORK SESSION: Parks and Recreation System Development Charge Methodology UpdateParks Natural Resource Planner Carolyn Burke and Consultant Deb Galardi of the GalardiRothstein Group gave background on the topic including the overall vision for how fundingwould be used, how transportation and parks SDCs are currently calculated, a possible new ratestructure that would be more progressive for housing; a new possible rate structure forcommercial SDCs, and a timeline for continuing the conversation on the topic with council.Council Discussion:
o Councilor Clark – expressed concern about the corresponding increase in housing costs;suggested that demand management strategies may be needed; asked what percent of ’07projects were on the list distributed at the meeting.
o Councilor Pryor – appreciated the work to make less expensive, smaller housing types moreaffordable.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked for clarification of the SDC project list; appreciated that theprogressive scale accounted for affordability based on square footage.
o Councilor Evans – expressed concern that the City wouldn’t be able to afford the parksdevelopment residents were asking for; asked about circumstances under which fees could
ATTACHMENT A
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 8, 2019 Page 2
be waived; pointed out that some of the cities used for comparison in the presentation slides were cities with much higher average incomes than Eugene.
o Councilor Syrett – appreciated the progressive approach, which resulted in a reduction foraccessory dwelling units and smaller homes; preferred not to drop any of the projects onthe list distributed; asked staff to follow up with her on what percentage increases wereused in 2007.
o Councilor Clark – preferred not to increase the cost of housing through SDCs while alsoincreasing the capacity of the parks by $58 million; felt it was not the time—given thehousing crisis—to do more projects; requested list of projects that were still on the list from2007.
o Councilor Zelenka – requested data on Springfield, Albany and Portland; noted that it hadbeen 12 years since council had last increased the SDCs; said that the city’s parks increaselivability; noted another option in which the smallest homes had a zero or negative increasein rate and larger increases for homes with more square footage.
o Councilor Pryor – said that even if the current rate didn’t change, the scale should beadjusted so that it is progressive and, therefore, more affordable for smaller homes.
o Councilor Evans – asked how many developers were working on smaller homes (under1600 square feet) within the city.
o Councilor Semple – said it was important to encourage development; increasing fees maydiscourage housing development.3.WORK SESSION: Municipal Court Presiding JudgeCity Manager’s Office Interim Division Manager Becky DeWitt introduced the item Judge Gill spokeabout his professional background, his involvement in the local Community Court; the key values hethinks the municipal court should uphold; and his vision for the future of the municipal court.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to extend the work session by 10 minutes. PASSED 7:0. Council Discussion:
o Councilor Clark – asked Judge Gill how effective the court was in reducing recidivism; statedpreference for a municipal court that is firmer in holding people accountable than theprevious Presiding Judge’s court.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked Judge Gill how he knows the Community Court works and whenthe evaluation by National Center for State Courts will be available; asked how the Judgewould handle his role as a partner in his current firm if he were to be hired by the City asthe presiding judge.The meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Cas Casados) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 8 , 2019 Page 1
Meeting
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 8, 2019
7:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Betty Taylor, Emily Semple, Mike Clark, Greg Evans, Chris Pryor, Jennifer Yeh, Alan Zelenka, Claire Syrett Councilor Taylor opened the July 8, 2019, meeting of the Eugene City Council in Mayor Vinis’ absence.
1.Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and Reading of the Declaration of IndependenceCandace Shorak of the Eugene-Jinju Sister City Committee, Galina Groza of the Eugene-Irkutsk Sister City Committee, and Larry Yamoaka of the Eugene-Kakegawa Sister CityCommittee led the Pledge of Allegiance and read the Declaration of Independence inhonor of Independence Day.
2.PUBLIC FORUM1.David Piccioni – shared his ideas for making sure courthouse toilets do not get clogged.2.Peter Dragovich – read an excerpt from Moody’s Investors report on climate change.3.Deb McGee – requested the council sunset the city’s use of methane gas.4.Todd Boyle – suggested ways to reduce the cost of housing.5.Joshua Korn – spoke about electro-sensitivity; asked council for a moratorium on 5G.6.Linda Heyl – spoke about reducing natural gas to meet climate goals.7.Victor Odlivak – spoke about federal legislation regarding 5G technology.8.Eric Jackson – said community court is ineffective and needs to be a court of record.9.Eliza Kashinsky – spoke of House Bill 2001 being an opportunity for Eugene.10.Sue Sierralupé – requested more sharps containers around the city and in new bathrooms.11.Jamie Porter – felt the handling of her stalking case by the police department was lacking.Discussion
o Councilor Evans – asked whether there had been an agreement made withNorthwest Natural Gas to extend for a year.
o Councilor Clark – asked for clarification about what would happen if council did notrenew its franchise agreement with Northwest Natural Gas; said the end of thefranchise agreement wouldn’t necessarily end the use of natural gas in the city.
o Councilor Taylor – thanked David Piccione and Sue Sierralupé for their comments.
o Councilor Semple –thanked Sue Sierralupé for her work.
3.CONSENT CALENDAR
A.Approval of City Council MinutesJanuary 23, 2019, Work SessionMay 13, 2019, Joint Work SessionMay 20, 2019, Public Hearing
ATTACHMENT B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 8 , 2019 Page 2
Meeting
B. Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. PASSED 8:0.
4.ACTION: Appointments to the Human Rights Commission
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to reappoint Joel Iboa to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning July 9, 2019, and ending on June 30, 2022. PASSED 8:0.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Daniel Borson to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning July 9, 2019, and ending on June 30, 2022. PASSED 6:2, Councilors Evans and Clark opposed.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Kirstin London to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning July 9, 2019, and ending on June 30, 2022. PASSED 8:0.
MOTION: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to appoint Heather Sielicki to the Human Rights Commission for a three-year term beginning July 9, 2019, and ending on June 30, 2022. Councilor Zelenka - pointed out that Amanda McCluskey had received themost votes of any candidate for the nomination and asked for clarificationabout whether she could still be appointed if she lived outside of theurban growth boundary.
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE AND VOTE: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to substitute Amanda McCluskey for Heather Sielicki.
PASSED 5:3, Councilors Taylor, Semple and Yeh opposed. Councilor Semple - felt strongly that council should not appoint candidatesoutside of the city limits if there were qualified candidates within.
VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION: PASSED 5:3, Councilors Taylor, Semple and Yeh opposed. The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Cas Casados) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 10, 2019 Page 1
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 10, 2019
12:00 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Chris Pryor, Greg Evans
Councilors Absent: Claire Syrett Councilor Taylor opened the July 10, 2019, work session of the Eugene City Council in Mayor Vinis’ absence.
1.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(a)The City Council met in executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statue 192.660(2)(a).Following the executive session, Councilor Taylor led a discussion of a salary range for the presiding judge of the municipal court. Council Discussion:
o Councilor Semple – expressed support for hiring Judge Gill as a presiding judge and makinghim an employee of the City rather than a contractor; supported providing a salarycommensurate with his corresponding level of skill and experience within the City.
o Councilor Clark – agreed that the presiding judge position should be an employee of the City;supported the salary range to be set at the division manager range.
o Councilor Zelenka – supported hiring the position as an employee with similar contract andcommunication requirements as the independent police auditor position; asked forclarification about the proposed salary range and compensation package.
o Councilor Pryor – expressed interest in negotiating a salary at the high end of the range.
o Councilor Semple – supported a salary range beginning at a higher number.
o Councilor Clark – asked for clarification about how the salary range might change over time.
MOTION AND VOTE (including friendly amendments): Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Evans, moved to hire Greg Gill as a municipal employee for the presiding judge position and authorize the council president to negotiate and execute an employment contract with Judge Gill that includes a salary range starting at $130,000 and going to the top of the range for division managers within the City. VOTE:
PASSED 7:0.
2.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(i)
The City Council met in executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statue
192.660(2)(i).
ATTACHMENT C
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 10, 2019 Page 2
3.WORK SESSION: Police Auditor Annual Performance ReviewCouncil Discussion
o Councilor Zelenka – lauded the Police Auditor’s work, especially as it related to theonboarding of the new Police Chief in the past year.
o Councilor Yeh – appreciated that the Police Auditor and his office are constantly trying toimprove their work and their communication efforts; praised the work to work positivelywith the Police Department.
o Councilor Pryor – thought the increase of the internally submitted complaints were atestament to the Police Department’s trust in his office; rated his work as excellent.
o Councilor Clark – recalled more divisive times between the community and the policedepartment; said the creation of the Office of the Police Auditor was done with hope formore cooperation and positive relationships and the current Police Auditor made thathope a reality.
o Councilor Taylor – pointed out that the creation of the office was borne out of a citizeninitiative; said that the current Auditor is benefiting from the hard work of those whopreviously held the position; noted that the role was especially challenging for the firstAuditor - a woman - noting that such a role is still more difficult for a woman today.
o Councilor Clark – disagreed with Councilor Taylor, noting that it diminished the currentAuditor’s work; said he felt the current Auditor was simply better at the job; asked forclarification about merit increases being tied to the score and supported aligning themwith the process used for the City Manager.
o Councilor Zelenka – supported having the same contract requirements for all threecouncil employees (the city manager, police auditor and municipal court presiding judge);asked for clarification on how the point system for performance reviews was tied to themerit increases; said he would prefer the Mayor’s score not be included in any meritincreases.
o Councilor Clark – did not want to see practices develop that were not supported by theCharter.
o Councilor Semple – felt strongly that the Mayor’s score should not be included in the meritincreases; did not feel that scoring for the Police Auditor should be translated into acorresponding compensation range during the meeting without councilors knowing thatwas the case when they chose their scores.
o Councilor Pryor – wanted to create a structure for a more reliable system with fewersurprises; wanted to implement the changes for the coming evaluation rather than thecurrent one.
o Councilor Clark – shared his intention to offer an amendment to give the Auditor a fivepercent merit pay increase rather than three percent raise.
MOTION: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved that council award the Police Auditor a three percent merit salary increase effective July 7, 2019, and authorize the Council President to execute a contract consistent with this motion.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked staff for language to amend that indicates future pay increaseswould be linked to a score by council and that the mayor’s score would not be included.
o Councilor Clark – spoke to the Police Auditor’s excellence; felt additional merit pay waswarranted.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked for clarification about what the Police Auditor originally askedfor in terms of his merit increase.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 10, 2019 Page 3
MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Yeh, moved to amend to change three percent to five percent plus an additional five days of vacation.
o Councilor Taylor – felt complex motions should always be split into parts so thatcouncilors can individually vote for the parts they wanted.
o Councilor Clark – said he planned to vote against the motion to divide because he feltthere was enough of a consensus at the table that the main motion would pass asamended.
MOTION TO AMEND AND VOTE: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to divide the motion into three parts: (1) five percent merit increase, (2) the additional five vacation days, and (3) changing the contract so that merit pay was linked to the average performance score of councilors.
FAILED: 2:5, Councilors Pryor, Evans, Zelenka, Yeh, and Clark opposed.
o Councilor Taylor – disapproved of tying the merit increase to the performance evaluation.
o Councilor Semple – reiterated that changing the contract regarding the merit pay was asurprise and would have liked more time to hear from constituents about it; preferred togive the Police Auditor what he asked for and not any more than that.
o Councilor Taylor – said she would have preferred a work session to discuss any changesto the contract.
VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: PASSED: 5:2, Councilors Semple and Taylor opposed.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED (including friendly amendments): Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved that council award the Police Auditor a five percent merit salary increase as well as five additional vacation days effective July 7, 2019, and authorize the Council President to execute a contract consistent with this motion, and that amends the contract to establish a merit increase structure identical to the city manager’s moving forward and that explicitly excludes the mayor’s ranking in the average score.
PASSED: 5:2, Councilors Taylor and Semple opposed. The meeting adjourned at 1:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Cas Casados) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 15, 2019 Page 1
Joint Work Session
M I N U T E S
Joint Meeting of the
Eugene City Council and Lane Transit District Board of Directors
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 15, 2019
5:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Chris Pryor, Mike Clark, Greg Evans, Claire Syrett
LTD Board Members Present: Carl Yeh, Don Nordin, Kate Reid, Joshua Skov, Emily Secord, Steven Caitlin Vargas Mayor Vinis and Board President Carl Yeh opened the July 15, 2019, Joint Meeting of the Eugene City Council and Lane Transit District Board of Directors.
1.JOINT WORK SESSION: MovingAhead Project UpdateCity Engineer Chris Henry, Principal Planner Terri Harding, and LTD staff Andrew Martinpresented information about proposed corridor investment packages. The Eugene City Counciland LTD Board of Directors were asked to affirm the proposed corridor investment packages inadvance of a Public Hearing in the fall of 2019.
[Councilor Zelenka arrived at 5:42]Discussion
o Councilor Semple – Expressed concern that information was confusing as presented;discussed preferences for EmX locations; discussed choices and associated costs and needs;expressed desire for “no build option”; inquired why River Road or Coburg Road waschosen over other options; discussed cost of EmX on River Road.
o Mr. Nordin – Discussed concerns around polarization of community due to cost of packages;inquired about who is opposing capitol costs and how informed community members are.
o Councilor Syrett – Discussed role as decision makers with regard to future transportationplanning and alternatives to single car use; discussed rationale behind high cost ofpackages.
o Mr. Skov – Expressed appreciation for the work already completed; emphasized purpose ofpackages; discussed purpose of large capital costs; discussed need for funding strategydiscussion including redevelopment potential.
o Councilor Clark – Inquired about how many people who live near Coburg Road versusthose that do not live on Coburg Road participated in discussion about Coburg RoadCorridor; discussed potential for development along Highway 99 and Coburg Road, as wellas challenges for transit development on Coburg Road.
o Mr. Yeh – Expressed support for transportation improvements on Coburg Road; discussedneed to focus on vision of projects rather than logistics.
o Councilor Evans – Expressed opinion that a no-build option is not a viable option anddiscussed need for some level of enhanced services; discussed types of enhancements andassociated factors like cost and where money would come from; expressed desire to buildout River Road and Highway 99 enhancements; discussed experiences with transit, needsfor enhancements, and livability issues in various corridors.
ATTACHMENT D
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 15, 2019 Page 2
Joint Work Session
o Mr. Skov – Expressed confusion as to why it would be hard to develop on Coburg Roadnoting that transit is needed to accommodate redevelopment; discussed desire for analysisin the context of current transportation costs and types of transportation; discussed costsavings in effective transportation systems.
o Councilor Yeh – Discussed role as decision maker in the current conversation aroundtransportation planning; discussed package options; reminded community that board andcouncil are not committing dollars but are discussing current work in planning and visionplanning; inquired about reaching out to transit riders.
o Ms. Reid – Asked why Coburg Road was chosen over the Highway 99 to add into themodified package and discussed desire to include Highway 99; discussed similaritiesbetween goals of Transit Tomorrow and MovingAhead and the need for communityinvolvement.
o Councilor Pryor – Discussed process of change in a community and the need for decisionmakers to articulate net gain instead of loss from process; requested that the conversationbe centered around this articulation.
o Ms. Vargas – Asked staff what information community members are given about projectionof growth within an associated corridor related to the development.
o Councilor Zelenka – Discussed cost of projects and other considerations; discussedhistorical planning efforts for other projects; expressed support for transit investments.
o Mr. Yeh – Reiterated and explained reasons for support of Coburg Road development;discussed similar support for River Road development; expressed desire not to comparedevelopment of Coburg Road versus Highway 99.
o Councilor Taylor – Discussed support for development of EmX on Highway 99 and relatedbenefits; discussed desire for more frequent bus service; voiced support for variouspackages.
o Ms. Reid – Discussed climate change and bus service considerations; discussed LTD’s role toprovide service to all areas of Eugene; noted LTD’s efforts around tree planting andpreservation.
o Mayor Vinis – Discussed the different packages and their effect on local community areasand paradigms associated with each corridor; expressed support for adding a package thatincludes EmX on Highway 99.
o Councilor Syrett – Noted net gains in trees during development of West Eugene EmXdevelopment; expressed support for Highway 99 package; discussed timelines ofinvestments of housing alongside investments in transportation, expressed desire to putforth an additional package for EmX on Highway 99 and River Road, enhanced corridor for30th, EmX for Coburg, and enhanced corridor for Martin Luther King, BLVD.; reiterated Mr.Yeh’s comments about not pitting options against one another.
o Councilor Clark – Discussed difference in community goals among corridors andtransportation investments; expressed desire to learn from and analyze data fromcommunity who live along corridors to decrease car use in exchange for publictransportation.
o Mr. Yeh – Discussed reasons for taking a system-wide approach to analysis versus focusingon those who live along the corridor; reiterated support for Coburg developments;expressed support for additional package to include Highway 99.
o Councilor Zelenka – Expressed support for forwarding packages other than no-build;discussed east-west commuting challenges; expressed support for moving these packagesto public hearing; reiterated what current decisions are intended to accomplish.
o Councilor Pryor – Discussed transportation planning methods for the future; discusseddifference between village and city infrastructure needs.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 15, 2019 Page 3
Joint Work Session
o Councilor Evans – Supported consideration of alternative transit options besides those thatgo through downtown when trying to access different sides of Eugene and surroundingcommunities; expressed desire for more information about what those options might be.
o Mr. Secord – Asked staff to expand on thoughts about developing enhanced corridors withfuture development in mind rather than immediate needs and related opportunity costs.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Syrett, seconded by Councilor Pryor, moved to amend the package and include a fifth package adding EmX on Highway 99, River Road and Coburg Road. PASSED 7:1, Councilor Clark opposed.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Syrett, moved to direct staff to present the MovingAhead Proposed Investment Packages as amended for a Public Hearing. PASSED 6:2, Councilors Clark and Taylor opposed. LTD Board members approved the same motions. The meeting adjourned at 6:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest City Recorder
(Recorded by Samantha Roberts) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Public Hearing July 15, 2019 Page 1
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 15, 2019
7:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Claire Syrett, Chris Pryor, Greg Evans Mayor Vinis opened the July 15, 2019, meeting of the Eugene City Council. 1.PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Extending the Term of Ordinance No. 20170 Granting to
Northwest Natural Gas Company, a Corporation, a Twenty-Year Non-Exclusive Right and
Franchise to Lay, Maintain and Operate Facilities in the Public Way Within the City of
Eugene, Oregon; and Providing for the Payment of Compensation to the City.Mayor Vinis opened the public hearing.1.Rouanna Garden – Spoke about use of natural gas and associated municipal revenue.2.Jim Ball – Spoke about demands of NWN and whether EWEB could meet community needs.3.Linda Heyl – Requested council use agreement to regulate NWN carbon emissions.4.Betzi Hitz – Reiterated need for agreement to meet CRO goals to reduce carbon emissions.5.Sara Burant – Spoke to climate change concerns and opposition of using natural gas.6.Jim Neu – Spoke to carbonization concerns, NWN, and opposition to agreement.7.Christa Knittle – Spoke in opposition to the franchise agreement.8.Tim Morris – Spoke about the failure of HB 2020 and need for immediate action.9.Ryan Moore – Spoke to considerations of climate change and use of natural gas.10.Michael Gannon – Addressed a variety of concerns related to climate change.Council Discussion
o Councilor Zelenka – Spoke to advocacy in partnering with NWN through a legally bindingagreement versus a franchise fee agreement; spoke to failure of HB 2020 and the challengesimposed on this agreement as a result; spoke to SB 98 and how it can incentivize NWN toact on renewable resources; spoke to the process of creating a binding legal agreement.
o Councilor Syrett – Inquired about NWN’s plans during the time it would take to create alegally binding agreement; expressed support for binding agreement rather than franchisefee contract given it includes requirements towards real reductions in emissions; supportedusing the agreement to leverage these types of reductions.
o Councilor Clark – Discussed capacity of EWEB to meet future capacity growth if gasbecomes unavailable and as demand for electricity increases; inquired of staff to have betterinformation from EWEB about capacity to provide electricity as demand grows.
o Councilor Zelenka – Discussed presentation from EWEB and capacity for growth includingEV and ability to meet demands, as well as incoming information from EWEB towards thistopic.Mayor Vinis closed the public hearing.
2.PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Amending and Codifying Permitted Overnight Sleeping
Rest Stop Program Provisions, and Amending Section 4.816 of the Eugene Code, 1971.Assistant City Manager Kristie Hammitt introduced the public hearing topic.
ATTACHMENT E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Public Hearing July 15, 2019 Page 2
Mayor Vinis opened the public hearing. 1.Donna Riddle – Spoke in support of the ordinance and other public hearing topics.2.David Ivan Piccioni - Spoke to a variety of unrelated topics.3.Tracy Joscelyn – Spoke in support of rest stops, noting success of Nightingale facility.4.Michael Gannon – Spoke to letter provided to Council in November 2018.5.Eric Jackson – Spoke in support of rest stops and related programs.6.Heather Sielicki – Spoke in support of ordinance and rest stops.Mayor Vinis closed the public hearing. Council Discussion
o Councilor Syrett – Addressed concerns brought by Michael Gannon; communicated supportfor involving those who are homeless in the implementation of strategies.
3.PUBLIC HEARING: Proposal to Rename Washington-Jefferson Park as Edwin R. Smith
Park in Honor of Ed SmithAssistant City Manager Kristie Hammitt introduced the public hearing topic.Mayor Vinis opened the public hearing.John Etter – Spoke in support of renaming the park.Terry Smith – Spoke in support of renaming the park.Marjorie Smith – Thanked council for considering the renaming proposal.Mayor Vinis closed the public hearing. Council Discussion
o Councilor Taylor – Expressed support for Edwin Smith’s contributions, renaming the park,and adding a monument to provide context for his contributions; expressed appreciationfor those opposing the change.
o Councilor Yeh – Discussed the importance of place naming; discussed need to addressdiversity in legacy building and for greater community input; expressed support formonument to recognize Edwin Smith’s contributions.
o Councilor Syrett – Expressed appreciation for Edwin Smith’s contribution to create a park inher ward and associated cost; expressed agreement with Councilor Yeh about need formore diverse community input for this topic.
o Councilor Clark – Spoke about past initiatives to name local landmarks.
o Mayor Vinis – Expressed agreement with Councilor Yeh and Syrett’s comments about theneed for broader and more inclusive means for public feedback.The meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest City Recorder
(Recorded by Samantha Roberts) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 17, 2019 Page 1
Work Session
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 17, 2019
12:00 p.m.
Councilors Present: Emily Semple, Betty Taylor, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Claire Syrett, Chris Pryor, Greg Evans Mayor Vinis opened the July 17, 2019, Work Session of the Eugene City Council.
1.WORK SESSION: Homeless Systems Implementation PlanSystems Policy Analyst Jason Dedrick and Homelessness Policy Analyst Peter Chavannespresented recommendations to move forward with implementation of the Technical AssistanceCollaborative’s Shelter Feasibility Study.Council Discussion:
o Councilor Taylor – Expressed concern about the $1 million set aside for a shelter not beingused for that intent, and asked where money is coming from; suggested state matchcontributions; spoke to individuals moving to Eugene to engage with improved homelessservices systems; inquired of staff what was meant by “building out to the perimeter”;stated that prevention of homelessness should be priority; inquired about proposedincentives to landlords; inquired if proposed motion included expanding rest stops.
o Councilor Clark - Inquired about capacity and location of proposed shelter and purpose ofrelated funding under discussion; discussed what information is needed to approve shelter;expressed discomfort with decision-making without first knowing the location of thefacility; asked whether a municipal judge can compel someone to stay in a given location(i.e., public shelter) or require drug treatment as a condition of sentencing; discussedconcerns about individuals that are perceived to not want help.
o Councilor Syrett – Expressed appreciation for topic; requested follow-up information onLane County’s budget allocation for this initiative; discussed previous efforts to arrive atthese recommendations as well as comparisons between a sprung structure and a concreteand steel structure; discussed purpose and perceived benefits of sprung structures; notedconversation with City Manager about organizing visits to other communities with similarstructures and previous conversations about shelter needs in Eugene.
o Councilor Pryor – Expressed agreement with Councilor Syrett and shared thoughts onsprung structure shelter; recounted previous conversations about shelter and theoverriding need for siting a shelter rather than discussing costs; discussed the landlordincentives concept and making current housing more accessible to more people; expressedsupport for recommendations.
o Councilor Yeh – Reiterated need for information about the County’s budget allocation andproposed actions; appreciated sprung structures given current resources and timeline;inquired about operations for shelter; reiterated Councilor Taylor’s comments abouthomelessness prevention and asked if funding would come from reserve contingency fundallocations; requested the information be made clearer to this end.
o Councilor Zelenka – Appreciated presentation and its alignment with the TAC Report;discussed recommendations and information from TAC Report; discussed budgetary andtimeline disadvantages of a “brick and mortar” shelter and expressed appreciation for
ATTACHMENT F
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 17, 2019 Page 2
Work Session
sprung shelter model; discussed Strategic Initiatives Manager concept; discussed mobile outreach concepts; discussed landlord engagement strategies.
o Councilor Semple – Discussed and expressed reasons for hesitancy around sprung structureshelter and asked what those experiencing homelessness think about the idea; discussedand inquired about the costs included in estimates and where the additional funding willcome from; listed various questions and concerns about shelter building; asked if theNavigation Center is a part of this shelter proposal; expressed frustration about the lack ofprogress.
o Mayor Vinis – Reiterated comments about previous commitments to building a structure,and current issues requiring council’s attention.
o Councilor Syrett – Requested information from sprung structure manufacturer providedduring Budget Committee meetings; discussed previous conversations about potentiallocation of Navigation Center; asked how mobile outreach teams would function andthrough what agency; discussed work of Strategic Initiatives Manager; discussed landlordengagement considerations; asked who will manage this recommendation; reiteratedCouncilor Clark’s request for information about municipal court judge sentencing options;spoke about prevention services for homelessness including diversion.
o Councilor Zelenka – Discussed considerations of landlord incentives concept; spoke abouttable of current services provided to address homelessness in Eugene.
o Councilor Semple – Provided information about movie “Tony” in Park Blocks; asked staffabout difference between “temporary shelter”, “durable shelter”, “sprung structure shelter”,etc.; discussed cost and funding considerations; inquired about how logistics are beingplanned; inquired about specifics of Strategic Initiatives Manager role and function;discussed landlord engagement efforts; expressed appreciation for contingency fund anddiscussed thoughts on action timeline.
o Councilor Clark – Inquired why it is important to vote on the motion proposed at thismeeting; discussed considerations for low-barrier shelter; expressed concerns about votingwithout more information.
o Councilor Taylor – Expressed agreement with Councilor Clark; would like to see $1 millionrestricted to use of shelter; discussed siting considerations for shelter and potentiallocations; discussed role of Strategic Initiative Manager; expressed concern for overlappingservices and sprung structure shelter concept.
o Mayor Vinis – Encouraged council vote, noting what the vote entails and potential for futurecouncil discussion.
MOTION: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to adopt the staff recommendations as outlined in Attachment A.
o Councilor Zelenka – Voiced support for motion, noting budget considerations.
o Councilor Clark – Expressed desire to move forward but needs information not providedduring presentation in order to vote on motion.
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute for approving the Strategic Initiative Manager and pilot landlord engagement program portions of Attachment A.
o Councilor Clark - Voiced concern there is too little information to vote on the section of therecommendation regarding the purchase of a structure; expressed support for voting onitems once costs are better understood.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 17, 2019 Page 3
Work Session
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION: FAILED: 2:6, Councilors Pryor, Syrett, Evans, Zelenka, Semple, and Yeh opposed.
o Councilor Taylor - Discussed TAC Report recommendations; discussed desire for firstconsidering location; expressed disapproval of motion.
o Councilor Semple – Inquired about logistics of planning, citing concerns about shelterlocation; discussed thoughts about and inquired of the City Manager how money allocationswill be spent.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: PASSED 6:2, Councilors Clark and Taylor opposed 2.WORK SESSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Downtown
Riverfront Land Use Adoption Package (An Ordinance Amending the Whiteaker Plan;
Repealing the EWEB Downtown Riverfront Specific Area Plan; Amending Chapter 9 of the
Eugene Code; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map and Overlay Zone Map; Rescinding the
Willamette Greenway Permit Approved by Ordinance No. 20513 and Approving a New
Willamette Greenway Permit; Approving a Tentative Subdivision; Approving a /WR
Water Resources Overlay Zone Standards Review; and Providing an Effective Date.)Community Development Director Michael Kinnison, Senior Planner Gabriel Flock, and SeniorPlanner Will Dowdy presented on the set of land use applications for mixed-use redevelopmentof the Downtown Riverfront site, including a new park, housing and commercial uses.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Evans, moved to extend the meeting by 10 minutes. PASSED 7:1, Councilor Clark opposed. Council Discussion
o Councilor Zelenka – Raised previous questions about concerns with eliminating minimumsetbacks and parking requirements; requested a staff memo explaining how the currentsetback proposal will not result in development shortfalls; cited concerns about theeventual need to construct a multimillion-dollar parking structure; requested staff memoaddressing parking concerns.
o Councilor Syrett – Asked about railroad quiet zone implications with the adoption of theland use package.
o Councilor Taylor – Inquired if railroad quiet zone is included in land use package motion;expressed opposition to spending on railroad quiet zone.
o Councilor Zelenka – Expressed opposition to motion if voted on before receiving staffresponses to concerns about parking and setbacks; noted general support for the proposal.
o Councilor Semple – Expressed support for waiting for answers to Councilor Zelenka’squestions.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to postpone motion until Monday, July 22, 2019. PASSED 7:1, Councilor Clark opposed.
o Mayor Vinis – Expressed appreciation to staff for presentation; announced vote would betaken at the following meeting.The meeting adjourned at 1:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 17, 2019 Page 4
Work Session
Beth Forrest City Recorder
(Recorded by Samantha Roberts) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 22, 2019 Page 1
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 22, 2019
5:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Betty Taylor, Emily Semple, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Claire Syrett, Chris Pryor
Councilors Absent: Greg Evans Mayor Vinis opened the July 22, 2019, work session of the Eugene City Council.
1.EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pursuant to Oregon Revised Statute 192.660(2)(e)City Council met in executive session pursuant to Oregon Revised Statue 192.660(2)(e).
2.Committee Reports and Items of Interest
MOTION: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Syrett, moved to adopt a resolution condemning white nationalism and alt-right activities and groups. Council Discussion:
o Councilor Semple – read parts of the proposed resolution brought forth on behalf of theHuman Rights Commission.
o Councilor Clark – expressed frustration with some of the wording of the resolutionbecause he believes white nationalism and white supremacy are abhorrent and it isappropriate to enact laws that address actions that stem from those beliefs; explainedhis discomfort with language condemning people’s beliefs; shared concerns that thegovernment should only concern themselves with actions and not beliefs; said he has aproposed amendment that will allow him to vote for the resolution.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked why the motion didn’t specifically reference the resolutionbrought forward by the Human Rights Commission.
o Councilor Syrett – thanked members of the Human Rights Commission for bringing thisresolution forward; talked about the challenges of supporting free speech while alsotaking a strong stance against the views represented in the resolution, because the CityCouncil does not have to agree with and support that speech; said that passage of theresolution is important to help ensure members of the community feel safe becausethese views lead to physical and psychological harm directed at members of thecommunity.
o Councilor Pryor – said that over the last few years the thoughts and beliefs of a certaingroup of people have become more the actions of their belief structure; said they haveto be mindful of the fact that our thoughts become our words and our words becomeour actions; said that while the City Council should not oppose religion, opinions, orbeliefs, the resolution addresses a form of hatred and bigotry and suppression of otherpeople; said that it was important and appropriate to use the format of a resolution tosay what City Council believes in.
o Councilor Clark - said that if this were a statement of intolerance or violent actions, hewould agree with Councilor Pryor; said actions or intimidation or violence are
ATTACHMENT G
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 22, 2019 Page 2
repugnant and have no place in our community, but the resolution talks about what people believe and he does not want to officially condemn people for their beliefs.
MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to removereference to people’s beliefs in this resolution.
o Council Discussion:
o Councilor Clark – clarified that he would like to remove anything that talks about agroup or individual’s beliefs and the City Council condemning them for those beliefs;addressed factual mistakes in the resolution.
o Councilor Zelenka – thanked the Human Rights Commission for writing the resolution;addressed Section H, which highlights Oregon’s ugly history on race and the importanceof including that in the resolution; talked about the reason for this conversation and thecurrent climate in our country where people are openly presenting themselves as whitenationalists and the City Council needs to stand against this hatred, bigotry, anddiscrimination.
o Councilor Syrett – talked about the important distinction that the resolution language isnot condemning the people who hold these beliefs, but taking a stand against thesebeliefs that claim that white people are better than other people; said she wants to makea statement affirming that all people in the community deserve to be safe and welcomewithout fearing violent or harassing action against them.
o Councilor Yeh – said that Section C seems to be a definition of white nationalism and shewouldn’t be in favor of removing it; shared appreciation for those who wrote theresolution and included next steps and reference to Oregon’s history.
o Councilor Semple – said she understood some of Councilor Clark’s concerns because shewouldn’t want to say someone couldn’t believe or think something; discussed what thedefinition of condemn means and said a person can believe whatever they want butcan’t do bad things because of it.
o Councilor Pryor – said it was an interesting point to think about where belief ends andaction begins and this resolution is intended to show City Council’s belief and policy isaround this issue.
o Councilor Taylor – said she didn’t see the need for the resolution because there arealready laws that prevent people from doing bad things.
o Mayor Vinis – talked about the Civil Rights movement and how this resolution doesn’tbreak any new ground by making a statement about the kinds of behavior that areconsidered unacceptable as a community.
o Councilor Clark – said that the resolution isn’t saying that someone’s beliefs are illegal,but that City Council is condemning those beliefs; said the problem with condemningpeople with certain beliefs is that there may be a future City Council made up of peoplewith different beliefs; expressed discomfort with naming the official belief of the City ofEugene.
o Councilor Syrett – talked about how protectors of free speech say that the best way tocombat speech is with more speech; said they should both defend people’s right toexpress their views and, in the right circumstance, condemn views they find dangerousand unacceptable.
o Councilor Semple – asked for Councilor Clark to restate the motion to make it clear.
o Councilor Clark – restated the motion to remove all references to any person or group’sbelief; said he would support a motion if the references to beliefs were changed toactions.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked Councilor Taylor if she would support the resolution if thechanges referenced in the motion were made.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 22, 2019 Page 3
VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: FAILED 3:4, Councilors Semple, Taylor, and Clark in favor.
MOTION TO AMEND TITLE OF RESOLUTION: Councilor Semple, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to amend the title of the resolution by removing the last two words of the title of the resolution, “and groups.” Council Discussion:
o Councilor Pryor – supported a unambiguous statement by the City Council that itcondemns white nationalism.
o Councilor Clark – said he believed the change was a good one but would still not vote infavor of the resolution because the council majority is defining who gets condemnedand it’s wrong to condemn people as opposed to actions.
MOTION TO AMEND TITLE OF RESOLUTION WITHDRAWN: Councilor Semple, with permission from Councilor Taylor, withdrew her motion to amend the title of the resolution.
VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: PASSED 4:3, Councilors Semple, Taylor, and Clark opposed.
3.WORK SESSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning the Downtown
Riverfront Land Use Adoption Package (An Ordinance Amending the Whiteaker Plan;
Repealing the EWEB Downtown Riverfront Specific Area Plan; Amending Chapter 9 of
the Eugene Code; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map and Overlay Zone Map;
Rescinding the Willamette Greenway Permit Approved by Ordinance No. 20513 and
Approving a New Willamette Greenway Permit; Approving a Tentative Subdivision;
Approving a /WR Water Resources Overlay Zone Standards Review; and Providing an
Effective Date.)Community Development Director Mike Kinnison, Urban Development Manager WillDowdy, and Senior Planner Gabe Flock answered questions about the Downtown RiverfrontLand Use Adoption Package from a previous work session.Council Discussion:
o Councilor Zelenka – expressed concerns he had related to setbacks and lessons learnedfrom the Capstone project, including design oversight; addressed parking concerns forfuture development.
MOTION: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to adopt an Ordinance Concerning the Downtown Riverfront Land Use Adoption Package (An Ordinance Amending the Whiteaker Plan; Repealing the EWEB Downtown Riverfront Specific Area Plan; Amending Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code; Amending the Eugene Zoning Map and Overlay Zone Map; Rescinding the Willamette Greenway Permit Approved by Ordinance No. 20513 and Approving a New Willamette Greenway Permit; Approving a Tentative Subdivision; Approving a /WR Water Resources Overlay Zone Standards Review; and Providing an Effective Date.)
PASSED 7:0,
4.WORK SESSION: Protections for Individuals Ordinance UpdateThis item was postponed until Wednesday, July 24, 2019.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council Work Session July 22, 2019 Page 4
The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Elena Domingo) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 22, 2019 Page 1
Meeting
MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 22, 2019
7:30 p.m.
Councilors Present: Betty Taylor, Emily Semple, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Mike Clark, Claire Syrett, Chris Pryor
Councilors Absent: Greg Evans Mayor Vinis opened the July 22, 2019, meeting of the Eugene City Council.
1.PUBLIC FORUM1.Joel Iboa – thanked council for passing the resolution condemning white nationalism.2.Hope Vaccher – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.3.Colin Farsnworth – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.4. Abraham Likwornik – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.5.Bekki Bruckner - spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.6.Victor Odlivak – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.7.Sabrina Siegel - spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.8.Susanne Beaman – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.9.Joshua Korn- spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.10.Roberly Hearsch – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.11.Barbara Wade – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.12.Robin Bloomgarden – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.13. Kathy Ging – spoke against 5G installation in Eugene.14.Tom Brandt– shared concerns about selling the riverfront property to developers.15.Sara Burant – invited council to join in 350 Eugene bicycle rides.16.David Igl – shared concerns about the renaming of Dunn Hall.17.Pamela Krause- shared an example of hate in our community.18.Deborah McGee – spoke in support of climate change policy.19.Patty Hine – spoke in support of climate change policy.20.Linda Perrine – spoke against renewing the NWN franchise agreement for another year.21.Linda Heyl – spoke against renewing the NWN franchise agreement for another year.22.Drix – talked about Eugene being a great city.23.Steve Kines – spoke in support of more rest stops and the proposed changes to rest stop siting.24.Stefan Strek – talked about homelessness in Eugene.25.Michael Carrigan – spoke in favor of the proposed rest stop siting changes.26.Michael Gannon – shared concerns about crosswalks and pedestrian safety.Council Discussion
o Councilor Semple – addressed voting against the resolution against white nationalism; saidshe’s horrified by white nationalism but concerned by the suggestion that the council wouldbe regulating people’s thoughts.
o Councilor Clark – asked the City Attorney if City Council has a legal obligation to implementa precautionary principle as it pertains to any issue particularly or the 5G issue specifically;discussed precautionary principle versus proof of harm principle; asked the City Attorney if
ATTACHMENT H
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 22, 2019 Page 2
Meeting
City Council is under a legal obligation to act in the manner discussed in some of the public forum testimony or if lack of action puts the City in legal jeopardy as it pertains to the 5G issues raised.
o Councilor Taylor – said she agreed with Councilor Semple’s statement and she’s been toldthere isn’t anything to City can do about 5G.
o Mayor Vinis – reported that she had scheduled a meeting with representatives of the groupopposing 5G; said that she made a speech at the U.S. Conference of Mayors about 5G,strongly advocating for fellow mayors to join in litigation against 5G providers overridinglocal control to rights-of-way.
o Councilor Clark - said that the City Council not acting with the speed that is hoped for is notthe same as not acting; said that the council has taken action through their normal processand have scheduled a work session on the topic.
2.CONSENT CALENDAR
A.Approval of City Council Minutes
o June 10, 2019, Work Session
o June 10, 2019, Meeting
o June 12, 2019, Work Session
o June 17, 2019, Work Session
o June 17, 2019 Public Hearing
o June 19, 2019, Work Session
o June 24, 2019, Work Session
o June 24, 2019, Meeting
B.Approval of Tentative Working Agenda
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to adopt the items on the Consent Calendar. PASSED 7:0.
3.ACTION: An Ordinance Extending the Term of Ordinance No. 20170 Granting to
Northwest Natural Gas Company, a Corporation, a Twenty-Year Non-Exclusive Right and
Franchise to Lay, Maintain and Operate Facilities in the Public Way Within the City of
Eugene, Oregon; and Providing For the Payment of Compensation to the City
MOTION: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to adopt an Ordinance Extending the Term of Ordinance No. 20170 for four months. Council Discussion
o Councilor Clark – said he wasn’t in favor of a four-month extension when the staffrecommendation was for a year; said he spoke with EWEB Board members about theircapacity to handle the demand if everyone moved away from natural gas.
o Councilor Taylor – said that the reason she proposed four months was because it gives timeto think about and learn more about what actions City Council can take.
o Councilor Syrett – shared her intention to amend the original motion to six months, butsupported the four month motion; said she was leaning towards Councilor Zelenka’sproposal that the City come to a binding agreement with Northwest Natural to reducecarbon emissions; said she had concerns about Northwest Natural’s commitment topartnering on reductions; asked for answers from Northwest Natural about how many newcustomers and how many new homes they plan to connect within a potential one-yearextension; said she wants to develop a robust and binding agreement with NorthwestNatural, creating a partnership with targets to reduce emissions and accountability.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 22, 2019 Page 3
Meeting
o Councilor Zelenka – shared concerns that it may be unrealistic to respond with a four-month extension and asked staff to share thoughts on a timeline; noted that the agreementis very complicated because it is unprecedented and there’s no template to move forwardon.
o Councilor Pryor – said he was sensitive to overloading staff and even though there might bea desire to move quicker, staff’s workload must be considered.
MOTION TO AMEND: Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to extend the term of Ordinance No. 20170 for one year. Council Discussion
o Councilor Yeh – said she doesn’t want to keep waiting on state action and wants to moveforward on making decisions; said she would support a four- or six-month extension, but ayear seems like more time than is needed.
o Councilor Semple – said she thinks six months is a good compromise and is comfortablewith that extension.
o Councilor Clark – said that if this motion fails, he will move to amend to six months.
VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND: FAILED 3:4, Councilors Semple, Taylor, Yeh, and Syrett opposed.
MOTION TO AMEND AND VOTE: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to extend the term of Ordinance No. 20170 for six months. PASSED 6:1, Councilor Taylor opposed.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED: PASSED 6:1, Councilor Clark opposed. Council Discussion
o Councilor Clark – asked about the consequences if Northwest Natural does not agree to asix-month contract extension.
o Councilor Syrett – said she feels a sense of urgency around this issue but, if needed, the CityCouncil has the ability to make another extension on the agreement; said that a six-monthextension will allow City Council to see what impacts there might be from the speciallegislative session in February.
4.ACTION: An Ordinance Amending and Codifying Permitted Overnight Sleeping Rest Stop
Program Provisions, and Amending Section 4.816 of the Eugene Code, 1971
MOTION: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to adopt an Ordinance Amending and Codifying Permitted Overnight Sleeping Rest Stop Program Provisions, and Amending Section 4.816 of the Eugene Code, 1971. Council Discussion
o Councilor Clark – said he would be voting against the motion because he doesn’t agree withthe change in placement issues and is representing his constituency who would not agreewith the changes.
o Councilor Semple – said she was in favor of the changes to the rest stop program.
o Councilor Taylor – asked for clarification on the proposed changes being made; said shewould not be voting for locating rest stops in residential areas.
VOTE ON MOTION: PASSED 5:2, Councilors Taylor and Clark opposed.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council July 22, 2019 Page 4
Meeting
5.ACTION: Approval of Motions Relating to the November 5, 2019, Election
MOTION: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to direct the City Manager to include on a supplemental budget sufficient appropriation offset by General Fund contingency and the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall to produce the voters’ pamphlet. Council Discussion
o Councilor Zelenka – said that he was not originally in favor of putting this on the ballot, butnow that it is on the ballot, he thinks people need to be informed about it and supports thismotion.
VOTE: PASSED 7:0.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to appoint Councilors Syrett and Pryor to the voters’ pamphlet proponent committee for the Charter Amendment that caps the rate and limits the use of the City’s Payroll Tax.
PASSED 7:0.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to direct the City Manager to include on a supplemental budget sufficient appropriation offset by General Fund contingency and the Reserve for Revenue Shortfall to pay the City’s part of the cost for the November 5, 2019 election. PASSED 7:0. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest City Recorder (Recorded by Elena Domingo) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council June 24, 2019 Page 1
Work Session
M I N U T E S
Eugene City Council
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
July 24, 2019
12:00 p.m.
Councilors Present: Betty Taylor, Emily Semple, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Yeh, Michael Clark, Claire Syrett, Chris Pryor
Councilors Absent: Greg Evans Mayor Vinis opened the July 24, 2019, Work Session of the Eugene City Council.
1.Committee Reports and Items of InterestMayor Vinis proposed postponing the City Manager’s Performance Rating Average motion toafter summer break because of all the other items on the agenda.
MOTION: Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to reconsider Monday night’s Resolution Condemning White Nationalism and Alt-Right Activities and Groups. Council Discussion
o Councilor Pryor – explained that he wanted to reconsider the resolution because it wouldbe nice if City Council provided greater and more forceful support for this particularresolution to demonstrate clearly that the City is opposed to the level of racism and activitygoing on.
VOTE ON MOTION: PASSED 7:0. Council Discussion
o Councilor Semple – said she was proud to have brought this resolution forward and hadfully intended to vote in favor of the resolution on Monday night, but was concerned thatthey might be condemning thoughts; noted it was against her values of freedom of speechand civil rights and wanted more time to consider this unintended path; said she would likeCity Council to pass a unanimous resolution consistent with their commitment to creating awelcoming and safe community and is grateful for the opportunity to change her vote toyes.
o Councilor Clark – said he wanted to vote in favor of this resolution; talked about thecomments calling him a racist and wanted to be clear that he does not think any race isinferior to any other; said the problem with the resolution was that parts of it wereincendiary and factually questionable and he made edits that he sent to City Council thatwould create a resolution he would be happy to vote in favor of.
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE: Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to substitute the language that he emailed for those places in the resolution so that the council might have a unanimous vote.
ATTACHMENT I
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council June 24, 2019 Page 2
Work Session
Council Discussion
o Councilor Clark – clarified language proposed because he had put forth multiple options,choosing Republic in the first instance and emphasizing in the second; said he thinks it’simportant to make this statement and wants to vote in favor of the resolution afterremoving areas that are condemning people’s beliefs; read the proposed changes:
o All mentions of us as a Democracy be changed to a Constitutional Republic. (or a Republic)
o Item C - Replace “...the belief that...” with "...the promotion of the idea that…"
o Item D - Strike “and alt-right” and “many of which have been emboldened by the nationalpolitical dialogue.”
o Item E - Replace the word “maintaining” with the word “promoting” or “emphasizing”.
o Item H - Strike all that begins with “For example……(begin again with)…..The State ofOregon also has…"
o Councilor Pryor – said it feels as if the council will be saying that they want to condemnracism and racist actions, but that it’s okay to be a racist and that sits uncomfortably withhim because there are certain things that it’s not okay to be; said that in the current politicalclimate being a racist is very difficult to hide because it comes out in words and if you arethe group in power saying things about groups not in power, that in its nature isintimidating and needs to be condemned.
o Councilor Syrett – said she could support the motion with all proposed changes except thestriking of the word “maintaining” because she believes the purpose and scope of whitesupremacy is to maintain that regime; said that we should not make space in ourcommunity to accommodate or tolerate the robust expression of beliefs such as whitesupremacy and does not want to be silent or timid in the face of these beliefs.
o Councilor Clark and Semple accepted Councilor Syrett’s suggestion as a friendlyamendment.
o Councilor Clark – said he would be willing to give up changing all mentions of “Democracy”to help meet in the middle.
o Councilor Taylor –said that when people have to hide something, it becomes moredangerous.
o Councilor Zelenka – said he was bothered by two of the changed proposals, includingstriking “many of which have been emboldened by the national political dialogue” notingthat this conversation is happening because of the national political dialogue; said he couldsee the problem with the wording in Item H implying that white supremacist groups calledfor the deportation of Japanese-Americans following Pearl Harbor.
o Councilor Pryor proposed amending the substitute motion to read, “Extreme racialprejudice resulted in the deportation of Japanese-Americans following Pearl Harbor…” inItem H.
o Councilor Clark and Councilor Semple accepted Councilor Pryor’s proposal as a friendlyamendment.
o Councilor Zelenka – supported the friendly amendment but is still bothered by striking textabout the national political dialogue.
o Mayor Vinis proposed rewording the sentence in Item D to read, “We recognize that therehas been a rise of white nationalist and white supremacist groups in the United States, andthat the national dialogue reflects that racist tension.”
o Councilor Clark and Councilor Semple accepted Mayor Vinis’ proposed rewording as afriendly amendment.
o Councilor Yeh – said she was not comfortable striking the sentence, “Today, whitesupremacy groups, including militias, are advocating for the apprehension, detention anddeportation of Central American refugees legally seeking asylum in the United States.”
o Councilor Clark – said he had a problem with the statement that anyone who believes indeportation of illegal immigrants is a racist.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council June 24, 2019 Page 3
Work Session
o Councilor Yeh – reiterated her opposition to striking this sentence or striking reference to“alt-right” groups; proposed rewording the sentence in Item H to read, “Today, groups areadvocating for the apprehension, detention and deportation of Central American refugeeslegally seeking asylum in the United States.”
o Councilor Clark and Councilor Semple accepted Councilor Yeh’s rewording as a friendlyamendment.
o Councilor Taylor – proposed postponing this item because she objected to re-writing theresolution language in this way at the table.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked clarifying questions about postponing motions to reconsider;said it was important that if they’re spending time amending the resolution, they’re doing itto get to a unanimous decision; shared concerns that Councilor Taylor’s suggestion topostpone the item might mean she won’t vote in favor of the amended resolution.
o Councilor Taylor – said she would prefer to consider the amendments thoroughly and voteon the resolution after break because this process was messy.
VOTE ON SUBSTITUTE MOTION (with friendly amendments): PASSED 7:0.
VOTE ON MAIN MOTION AS SUBSTITUTED: PASSED 7:0.
o Mayor Vinis – said this was an important conversation to have but encouraged councilors INthe future to make edits to a proposed resolution in advance and not during a City Councilmeeting.
2.WORK SESSION: Implementation of Construction Excise Tax and Use of Affordable
Housing Trust FundsCommunity Development Director Michael Kinnison, Grants Manager Stephanie Jennings, andBuilding Permit Services Director Lydia Kaye provided an update on the Construction ExciseTax (CET), a timeline for its implementation, and the outcomes and potential focus areas for useof CET funds.Council Discussion
o Councilor Clark – asked staff about the pilot assistance program; talked about his challengeswith the Construction Excise Tax because it makes housing more expensive and generatesmore rental housing instead of home ownership; said he would prefer to make it easier forlow-income folks to buy homes and would support 15 percent or more of residential CETrevenue set aside for down payment assistance.
o Councilor Syrett – said she liked the makeup of the proposed committee; asked who thecommittee would be making recommendations to; said her priority focus areas are includedon the proposed list, including both renter and homeowner assistance; asked if this fundingcould be used for permanent supportive housing; said she supported this fund because ofits flexibility and will be looking for creativity in the recommendations from the advisorycommittee and staff to make the best use of CET dollars.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked about the status of the renter protections task force and surveyand how that gets integrated into this process; talked about the affordable housing taskforce group and their focus on more affordable housing, noting very few people in thatgroup were renters so the focus was not on renter protections; said he thinks this moneyshould be focused on people not losing their homes with assistance to renters andhomebuyers, including help with down payments, rental deposits, housing navigators, and asingle rental application process.
o Councilor Yeh – agreed that the money should be focused on the three proposed potentialfocus areas and that the City should be looking at setting aside more than 15 percent of the
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council June 24, 2019 Page 4
Work Session
residential revenue for down payment assistance; asked what a housing consumer advocate is; said that it would be helpful if the recommendations were created within some context related to other programs.
o Councilor Pryor – said his main interest in approving the CET was to provide flexibility andoptions for spending the money; however, more options means having to decide where thatmoney is and isn’t going; said he wanted the fact that housing needs in Eugene are not staticor one-size fits all to be considered; said one of his intentions is that the CET funding couldbe leveraged with other sources of funds to create a bigger impact.
o Councilor Taylor – pointed out that no additional money would be coming in for the firsttwo years; said that helping with down payments and first and last month’s rent is crucial.
o Councilor Zelenka – clarified that the SDC offset with general fund money is only temporaryfor two years and additional money will come in the third year; talked about how manypeople are housing burdened in Eugene and the need to educate people about helpfulhousing programs; said he thinks this money should be a source for the renter protectionscommittee recommendations.
o Councilor Syrett – asked about additional outreach and engagement happening with rentalhousing fund money; agreed with Councilor Yeh that it would be helpful to have context forrecommendations that are proposed, including existing programs and how they connect.
o Mayor Vinis – said part of the pressure on renters is that the short supply of housing isdriving prices up; said that remediation and protection for renters is critical, but so is thesupply and the need to build more affordable housing.
o Councilor Zelenka – asked if there was a method in place to track the number of housingunits built since the implementation of the CET; said he wants to be able to point to theincremental changes made by implementing the CET; supported making it clear what theCity Council priorities were.
MOTION: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved that the vast majority of the CET funds be used on direct assistance to renters and homebuyers with at least 15 percent of the residential CET revenue set aside for down payment assistance.
o Councilor Syrett – shared concerns about precluding the advisory committee from comingback with recommendations that might not line up with this motion; asked if City Councilcould change the spending ratio with a future motion
o Councilor Clark – talked about wanting to increase assistance for low-income individuals tohelp people buy homes rather than rent them; said the community is skewed towards a highnumber of rentals and HB 2001 will make it even more skewed; noted that prices won’t godown as more units are created.
o Councilor Pryor – said the flexibility of the CET funds is one of its strong suits andsupported going thorough more of a process and getting more feedback before narrowingdown the focus area for the money.
o Councilor Zelenka – clarified that his motion directs a majority of the money in onedirection but leaves flexibility for the rest of the funds; said he wants to give the committeethat will be formed in August some clear direction from City Council.
VOTE ON MOTION: PASSED 4:3, Councilors Semple, Syrett, and Pryor opposed.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Yeh, moved to extend the meeting by 10 minutes. PASSED 5:2, Councilors Zelenka and Clark opposed.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
MINUTES – Eugene City Council June 24, 2019 Page 5
Work Session
3.WORK SESSION: Protections for Individuals Ordinance UpdateHuman Rights and Neighborhood Involvement Manager Jennifer Lleras Van Der Haeghen gavean overview of the Protections for Individuals Ordinance and proposed draft code changes.Council Discussion
o Councilor Syrett – thanked other councilors for reconsidering the resolution condemningwhite nationalism and hatred and coming to a unanimous vote; said she was proud ofefforts the City Council, City Manager, and Police Chief have taken to ensure all residentsfeel secure doing business with the City and accessing City services without fear that theirinformation will be turned over to another government agency without due process; saidshe thinks the additional proposed code changes would further strengthen these measuresand give clear direction to City employees.
MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Syrett, seconded by Councilor Semple, moved to direct the City Manager to schedule a public hearing on an ordinance substantially similar to the Attachment B from the City Council’s packet dated July 22, 2019. PASSED 7:0.
4.Committee Reports and Items of InterestCouncil Discussion
o Councilor Taylor – raised constituent concerns about tents along the bike path, the payrolltax, and questions about why the power lines aren’t being buried during the Willamettereconstruction; mentioned the free symphony in the park event as one of the best things theCity does; said one of the worst things the City does is charge library fines, including puttinga freeze on accounts that owe more than $10 and referring fees to a collection agency at$50.
o Mayor Vinis – talked about participating in the international disabled women’s conferenceand two upcoming events Mobility International is having that are influential and inspiring;talked about participating in the U.S. Conference of Mayors and associated Climate Summit;said she has chosen to serve on the steering committee for Climate Mayors in hopes offinding opportunities.The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Forrest City Recorder
(Recorded by Elena Domingo) Link to the webcast of this City Council meeting: here.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2A
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2B
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Approval of Tentative Working Agenda Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2B Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5882
ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve the City Council Tentative Working Agenda.
BACKGROUND On July 31, 2000, the City Council held a process session and discussed the Operating Agreements. Section 2, notes in part that “The City Manager shall recommend monthly to the council which items should be placed on the council agenda. This recommendation shall be placed on the consent calendar at the regular City Council meetings (regular meetings are those meetings held on the second and fourth Monday of each month in the Council Chamber). If the recommendation contained in the consent calendar is approved, the items shall be brought before the council on a future agenda. If there are concerns about an item, the item may be pulled from the consent calendar at the request of any councilor or the Mayor. A vote shall occur to determine if the item should be included as future council business.” Scheduling of this item is in accordance with the Council Operating Agreements.
RELATED CITY POLICIES There are no policy issues related to this item.
COUNCIL OPTIONS The council may choose to approve, amend or not approve the tentative agenda.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager has no recommendation on this item.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the items on the Tentative Working Agenda.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2B
ATTACHMENTS A. Tentative Working Agenda
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 541-682-5882 Staff E-Mail: bforrest@eugene-or.gov
Work Session Action Public Hearing Public Forum Consent Calendar
Committee Reports/Items of Interest Ceremonial Matters Pledge of Allegiance
Updated August 28, 2019
Meeting Location: Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue, unless otherwise noted
Council Break: July 25 – September 9
September 2019
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
9‐Sep Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Airport Master Plan
(Work Session)
Sign Code/Digital Display
Technology
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Tim Doll, PW
Jenessa Dragovich, PDD
7:30 pm Public Forum
Resolution Annexing Land to City
(Kohler Annex; A19‐3 Living
Strong LLC)
(Consent Calendar)
Resolution Annexing Land to City
at 187 Swain Lane (Therrell,
Matthew A 19‐2)
(Consent Calendar)
Resolution Annexing Land to City
(Hatton; A 19‐4)
(Consent Calendar)
Dan Halverson, PDD
Nick Gioello, PDD
Dan Halverson, PDD
Expected absences for 9/9: none
11‐Sep Wednesday 12 pm
Ferry Street Manor MUPTE
Application
(Work Session)
Rivers to Ridges Update
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Amanda D’Souza, PDD
Craig Carnagey, PW
Expected absences for 9/11: none
16‐Sep Monday
5:30 pm Ordinance Concerning Accessory
Dwelling Units (LUBA Remand)
(Work Session & Poss. Action)
90 mins Alissa Hansen, PDD
7:30 pm Ordinance on Data Collection and
Protection of Individuals
(Public Hearing)
Jen Van Der Haeghen,
CS
Expected absences for 9/16: none
ATTACHMENT A
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2B
2
18‐Sep
Wednesday
12 pm
Alley Access Rules
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Alissa Hansen, PDD
Expected absences for 9/18: Evans
23‐Sep
Monday
5:30 p.m.
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
URA ‐ Riverfront Update
(Work Session)
Short‐Term Vacation Rentals
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Michael Kinnison, PDD
Lydia Kaye, PDD
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Proposal to Rename Washington
Jefferson Park in Honor of Ed
Smith
(Action)
Kelly Shadwick, PW
Expected absences for 9/23: none
25‐Sep
Wednesday
12 pm
City Manager Annual Evaluation
(Work Session)
Executive Session
Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(i)
Executive Session
Pursuant to ORS 192.660(2)(e)
45 mins
45 mins
Keri Beraldo, CS
Expected absences for 9/25: none
October 2019
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
9‐Oct
Wednesday
12 pm
Small Cell Technology
(Work Session)
Parks and Recreation SDC
Methodology Update
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Scott Milovich, PW
Carolyn Burke, PW
Expected absences for 10/9: none
14‐Oct
Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Human Rights Commission
Annual Report and Work Plan
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Jen Van Der Haeghen,
CS
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Expected absences for 10/14: none
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2B
3
16‐Oct Wednesday 12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Expected absences for 10/16: none
21‐Oct Monday 7:30 pm MovingAhead w/LTD Board
(Joint Public Hearing) Chris Henry, PW
Expected absences for 10/21: none
23‐Oct Wednesday 12 pm Process Session
(Work Session) 90 mins
Expected absences for 10/23: none
28‐Oct Monday
5:30 p.m.
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Sustainability Commission
Annual Report and Work Plan
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Chelsea Clinton, CS
7:30 pm Public Forum
Expected absences for 10/28: none
30‐Oct Wednesday 12 pm
Downtown Fiber Update
(Work Session)
Town Square Update
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Anne Fifield, PDD
Will Dowdy, PDD
Expected absences for 10/30: none
November 2019
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
12‐Nov Tuesday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
7:30 pm Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Public Forum
Expected absences for 11/11: none
13‐Nov Wednesday 12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Expected absences for 11/13: none
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2B
4
18‐Nov
Monday
5:30 pm
Bethel Urban Renewal District
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Anne Fifield, PDD
7:30 pm
Ordinance on Polystyrene
(Public Hearing)
Anna Reid, PDD
Expected absences for 11/18: none
20‐Nov
Wednesday
12 pm
URA – Steam Plant Deal Points
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Amanda D’Souza, PDD
Expected absences for 11/20: Taylor, Evans, Semple
25‐Nov
Monday
5:30 p.m.
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
Downtown Activity Zone
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Michael Kinnison, PDD
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Ordinance on Polystyrene
(Action)
Anna Reid, PDD
Expected absences for 11/25: none
27‐Nov
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Expected absences for 11/27: none
December 2019
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
9‐Dec
Monday
5:30 pm
Committee Reports and Items of
Interest
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2B
5
9‐Dec
Monday
7:30 pm
Public Forum
Resolution Acknowledging Receipt
of FY19 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report
(Consent Calendar)
URA – Resolution Acknowledging
Receipt of FY19 URA Annual
Financial Report
(Action)
Supplemental Budget #1
(Public Hearing and Action)
URA Supplemental Budget #1
(Public Hearing and Action)
Finn Cronin, CS
Finn Cronin, CS
Vicki Silvers, CS
Vicki Silvers, CS
Expected absences for 12/09: none
11‐Dec
Wednesday
12 pm
TBD
(Work Session)
TBD
(Work Session)
45 mins
45 mins
Expected absences for 12/11: none
Council Break: December 12 – January 8
January 2020
Date Day Time Title Length Dept. Contact
8‐Jan
Wednesday
5:30 pm
2020 State of the City
Elena Domingo, CS
Expected absences for 1/8: none Hult Center – Soreng Theater
Work Session Action Public Hearing Public Forum Consent Calendar
Committee Reports/Items of Interest Ceremonial Matters Pledge of Allegiance
Approved Work Session Polls to be Scheduled Councilor Date Approved
Data Collection/Protection of Individuals and Groups – PH scheduled 9/16/19
Revisit City Code Regarding Alley Access Rules ‐ scheduled 9/18/19
Update Sign Code for Digital Display Technology – scheduled 9/9/19
Short‐term Vacation Rentals – scheduled 9/23/19
5G/Small Cell – include experience of other cities – scheduled 10/9/19
Syrett
Semple
Pryor
Taylor
Clark
7/19/18
10/11/18
2/14/19
5/23/19
5/20/19
Follow‐Up Work Sessions to be Scheduled
TAC Implementation
Commercial Setbacks
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Adoption of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Assessor’s Map 17-04-25-21, Tax Lot 3200, Located at 112 and 114 Hansen Lane) (City File: Craig and Holly Kohler; A 19-3) Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2C Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Dan Halverson
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5410
ISSUE STATEMENT This item is a request to annex approximately 0.58 acre (25,299 square feet) of developed land located at 112/114 Hansen Lane. No public right-of-way is proposed for annexation as part of this request. A vicinity map is provided as Attachment A. The property is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential with /UL Urbanizable Land Overlay. Both the Metro Plan and the applicable refinement plan, the River Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, designate the subject property for Low Density Residential use. The property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is contiguous to other properties in the City limits along the western property boundary. Annexation will allow for future development consistent with the property’s land use designation and the Eugene Code. Specific development plans for future of the site are not included as part of this annexation application.
BACKGROUND To encourage compact urban growth and sequential development within Eugene’s UGB, the Metro Plan provides that ultimately all land within the UGB will be annexed into the City and provided with a minimum level of urban services. Approval of annexation requests are based on the criteria at Eugene Code 9.7825 which require that (1) the land proposed to be annexed is within the City’s UGB and is contiguous to the City limits or separated from City limits only by a right-of-way or water body; (2) the proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in any applicable refinement plans; and (3) the proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimal level of key urban facilities and services can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner. Findings demonstrating that the annexation request is consistent with these approval criteria are included as Exhibit C to the attached draft resolution (Attachment B).
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
To provide nearby property owners and residents an opportunity to review and comment on this annexation request, public notice was provided to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property and the affected neighborhood association (Santa Clara Community Organization), consistent with Eugene Code requirements. No testimony has been received to date regarding the proposed annexation of this property. Referral comments were provided by affected agencies including City of Eugene Public Works, Lane County Transportation Planning, and Eugene Water & Electric Board. These referral comments confirm there are no concerns with the proposed annexation and the property can be provided with the minimum level of key urban services consistent with the approval criteria. Additional background information regarding this request, including relevant application materials, is included for reference as Attachment C. A full copy of all materials in the record is also available at the Permit and Information Center located at 99 West 10th Avenue.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION None.
COUNCIL OPTIONS City Council may consider the following options: 1. Adopt the draft resolution 2. Adopt the draft resolution with specific modifications as determined by the City Council 3. Deny the draft resolution 4. Defer action until after the council holds a public hearing on the proposed annexation
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the draft resolution by finding that the request complies with all applicable approval criteria, and that the annexation be approved.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt a resolution approving the proposed annexation request consistent with the applicable approval criteria.
ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Draft Annexation Resolution with Exhibits A through C Exhibit A: Map of Annexation Request Exhibit B: Legal Description Exhibit C: Planning Director Findings and Recommendation C. Application Materials for Annexation Request
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Dan Halverson Telephone: 541-682-5410 Staff E-Mail: DHalverson@eugene-or.gov
^
Caution: This map is based onimprecise source data, subject tochange, and for general reference only.
Kohler, Craig and Holly (A 19‐3)
Subject Property
Eugene City Limits
Taxlots
06012030
Ft
HANSEN LN
CROCKER LN
R
I
V
E
R
R
D
BRIARCLIFF DR
Created on 7/18/2019by City of Eugene Planning Division
N
Attachment A
Map/Tax Lot 17‐04‐25 ‐21 03200; 112/114 Hansen Lane
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Resolution - Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION ANNEXING LAND TO THE CITY OF EUGENE
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-04-25-21, TAX LOT 3200, LOCATED AT 112 AND
114 HANSEN LANE ).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.An annexation application was submitted on June 13, 2019, by Craig Kohler, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 9.7810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, (“EC”) to annex
property identified as Assessor’s Map 17-04-25-21, Tax Lot 3200, to the City of Eugene.
B.The property proposed to be annexed is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A
to this Resolution. The legal description of the property proposed to be annexed is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit B.
C.The City’s Planning Director has submitted a written recommendation that the
application be approved based on the criteria of EC 9.7825. The Planning Director’s Findings and
Recommendation is attached as Exhibit C.
D.On August 9, 2019, a notice containing the street address, the assessor’s map and
tax lot number for the property, a description of the land proposed to be annexed, and the Planning
Director’s preliminary recommendation was mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of
properties located within 500 feet of the perimeter of the subject property, and the River Road
Community Organization. The notice advised that the City Council would consider the Planning
Director’s full recommendation on the proposed annexation on September 9, 2019.
E.After considering the Planning Director’s recommendation, the City Council finds
that the application should be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based on the above findings and the Planning Director’s Findings and
Recommendation which are attached as Exhibit C and are adopted in support of this Resolution, it
is ordered that the land identified as Assessor’s Map 17-04-25-21, Tax Lot 3200, which is depicted
on the map attached as Exhibit A, and more particularly described in the attached Exhibit B, is
annexed to the City of Eugene.
Attachment B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Resolution - Page 2 of 2
Section 2. This Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council.
The annexation and the automatic rezoning of the land pursuant to EC 9.7820(3) from R-1 Low-
Density Residential with /UL Urbanizable Land Overlay to R-1 Low-Density Residential shall
become effective in accordance with State law.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____ day of September, 2019.
______________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
9
,
2
0
1
9
,
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
–
I
t
e
m
2
C
Exhibit B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Exhibit C
Kohler, Craig and Holly (A 19-3) August 2019 Page 1
Planning Director’s Findings and Recommendation
Annexation Request for Kohler
(City File: A 19-3)
Application Submitted: June 13, 2019
Applicant: Kohler, Craig and Holly
Property Included in Annexation Request: Tax Lot 03200 of Assessor’s Map 17-04-25-21
Zoning: R-1 Low-Density Residential and /UL Urbanizable Land Overlay
Location: 112/114 Hansen Lane, west of River Road and east of Alberta Lane
Representative: Jonathan Oakes, Poage Engineering & Surveying, Inc.
Lead City Staff: Dan Halverson, City of Eugene Planning Division, 541-682-5410
EVALULATION:
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the City has determined that this request complies
with Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.7805 Annexation - Applicability. As such, it is subject to review and
approval in accordance with the requirements, application criteria and procedures of EC 9.7800 through
9.7835. The applicable approval criteria are presented below in bold typeface with findings and
conclusions following each.
EC 9.7825(1) The land proposed to be annexed is within the city’s urban growth boundary and is:
(a) Contiguous to the city limits; or
(b) Separated from the city only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other
body of water.
Complies Findings: The annexation area is within the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB) and is
contiguous to the City limits along the west property line, consistent with subsection (a).
YES
NO
EC 9.7825(2) The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in
any applicable refinement plans.
Complies Findings: Several policies from the Metro Plan provide support for this annexation by
encouraging compact urban growth to achieve efficient use of land and urban service
provisions within the UGB, including the following policies from the Growth
Management section (in italic text):
Policy 8. 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. (page II-C-4)
Policy 10. Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the
highest priority. (page II-C-5).
YES
NO
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Exhibit C
Kohler, Craig and Holly (A 19-3) August 2019 Page 2
Policy 15. Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with
the required minimum level of urban facilities and services. While the time
frame for annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions
from urbanizable to urban. (page II-C-5)
The following policy from the Residential Element of the Metro Plan is also applicable:
Policy A.2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with
the Metro Plan, and applicable plans and policies; however, existing
agricultural zoning may be continued within the area between the city limits
and UGB until rezoned for urban uses.
The Metro Plan designates the property to be annexed as appropriate for low-density
residential use. The River Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RR/SC UFP) is the
adopted refinement plan for the subject property and designates the area for residential
uses. The property is zoned R-1 Low-Density Residential and /UL Urbanizable Land
overlays. The /UL overlay will be automatically removed from the property following
annexation approval.
With regard to applicable policies of the RR/SC UFP, none of the general “Residential
Land Use Policies” at Section 2.2 appear to be directly applicable to the subject request.
The “Public Facilities and Services Element” policies of the RR/SC UFP are directed at
local government; however, the premise of these policies (regarding the provision of
urban services) is the assumption that property within the UGB will be annexed.
As previously discussed in this subsection, and further detailed under subsection (3)
below, the proposed annexation is consistent with Metro Plan growth management
policies and can be served by the minimum level of key urban services. The annexation
procedures beginning at EC 9.7800 are consistent with State law and therefore, as found
throughout this report, the annexation is consistent with State law.
Therefore, based on the findings above, the proposal is consistent with the applicable
policies of the Metro Plan and RR/SC UFP refinement plan.
EC 9.7825(3) The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level of key
urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can be provided in an
orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
Complies
Findings: Consistent with this criterion, the proposed annexation will result in a
boundary in which the minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be
provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner as detailed below:
Wastewater
Currently there is an 8-inch public wastewater line within Hansen Lane. The subject
parcel contains two houses that are both connected, under city permit #92-03586-01.
Each address has its own separate connection.
YES
NO
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Exhibit C
Kohler, Craig and Holly (A 19-3) August 2019 Page 3
Stormwater
The subject property is not currently connected to the city stormwater conveyance
system. The closest city system is approximately 400 feet east of the parcel, near the
intersection of Hansen Lane and River Road. Soils appear to be type “C” indicating poor
infiltration rates; however, the parcel size indicates that on-site infiltration appears to be
a feasible alternative. Future development proposals must demonstrate consistency with
flood control standards, of which include sizing for flood control and meeting water
quality standards when triggered.
Transportation
The property has access and frontage on Hansen Lane, which is a local road that is
unimproved to city standards; lacking sidewalks, curbs, street lights or street trees. It is
owned by Lane County and provides direct access to River Road which is a minor arterial
owned and maintained by Lane County Public Works. Compliance with applicable street
standards will be ensured at the time of future development or when deemed
necessary.
Comments from Lane County Transportation Planning indicate no concerns with the
proposed annexation request. Any redevelopment or new development of the property
must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Lane County Code Chapter 15.
A review for compliance with Lane County road requirements will apply at the time of
future development.
Solid Waste
Collection service is provided by private firms. Regional disposal sites and the Short
Mountain Landfill are operated by Lane County.
Water and Electric
EWEB Water staff state no objection to the annexation. EWEB Electric staff also state no
objection to the annexation. Water and electric services can be extended to the subject
property in accordance with EWEB policies and procedures.
Public Safety
Police protection can be extended to this site upon annexation consistent with service
provision through the City. Fire protection will be provided by Eugene Springfield Fire.
Emergency medical services are currently provided on a regional basis by the cities of
Eugene and Springfield to central Lane County and will continue in the same manner
upon annexation.
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation programs are provided on a City-wide basis. The inclusion of the
subject property in the City is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the minimum level of
this key urban service is met.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Exhibit C
Kohler, Craig and Holly (A 19-3) August 2019 Page 4
Planning and Development Services
Planning and building permit services are provided for all properties located within the
urban growth boundary by the City of Eugene. The Eugene Code, Chapter 9, will provide
the required land use controls for future development of the subject property upon
annexation.
Communications
A variety of telecommunications providers offer communications services throughout
the Eugene/Springfield area.
Public Schools
The subject property is within Eugene School District 4J and is within the district
boundary of River Road Elementary School, Kelly Middle School, and North Eugene High
School. As access to schools is evaluated on a district wide basis, the property’s location
within the school district is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the minimum level of this
key urban service is met.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the above findings, information submitted to date, and the criteria set forth in EC 9.7825, the
proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable approval criteria. A map and legal description
showing the area subject to annexation are included in the application file for reference. The effective
date is set in accordance with State law.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Awfth JUN 13 2019 i ANNEXATION
Planning
PLAIANING:
Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional information may be required upon further
review in order to adequately address the applicable criteria for approval. If you have any questions about filling out this
application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541)682-5377, 99 West 10th
Avenue, Eugene.
List all Assessor's Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in the request.
Assessor's Map Tax Lot Zoning Acreage
N
L E--
Property Address: i I b l m , +14 f- r , 4fl, °CKI- .-t .I :
Plans for Future Development & Permit Number (if applicable):
Public Service Districts:
Name
Parks:
Electric:
h
r ID-1,
Water:W. u. t r~».
Sanitary Sewer L T C. . -t
Fire:
Schools:Elementary: 1-4k5 ILA
Middle:
t High:
Other:
Filing Fee
A filing fee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is adjusted
periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center to determine the
required fee or check website at www.eugeneplanning.org
Written Statement (Submit 5 copies)
Submit a detailed written statement describing how this request is consistent with all applicable criteria (Section
9.7825 of the Eugene Code).
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division
99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail:eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 1 of 4September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
ATTACHMENT C
Site Plan Requirements
Submit 3 paper copies and 1 digital copy of a site plan, drawn to an engineer's scale on 8 Y2" x 11 " sheet of paper. Site plans
shall include the following information:
Show the date & north arrow on site plan.
Show the Assessor's Map and Tax Lot number(s) on the site plan.
Show a vicinity map on the site plan (vicinity map does not need to be to scale).
Show city limits & UGB (if applicable)
Clearly label the affected territory and any public right of ways to be annexed.
Show all adjacent streets, alleys, and accessways.
Show all dimensions of existing public utility easements and any other areas restricting use of the parcels, such as
conservation areas, slope easements, access easements, etc.
Show the location of all existing structures.
Other Application Requirements (Submit 3 paper copies and 1 digital copy of all)
Petition for Annexation form listing all owners, including partial owners, and electors. This form includes the
Certification of Electors which must be signed by the Lane County Elections/Voter Registration Department and also
includes the Verification (Certification) of Property Owners which must be signed by the Lane County Department of
Assessment and Taxation. This form is required even if the land is vacant.
Notarized Consent to Annexation form.
A legal description of the land proposed for annexation, including any public right of way prepared by a registered
land surveyor. Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) 308.225 requires submittal of a closing metes and bounds description
or subdivision block and lot number description. Please see example of acceptable legal descriptions contained in
the application packet. The legal description must exactly correspond with the map included with the application or
the Assessor's map.
Summary of Urban Service Provision form.
Census information Sheet.
Note: This is not a complete list of requirements. Additional information may be required after further review in order
to adequately address the applicable approval criteria.
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division
99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail:eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 2 of 4September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understood the submittal requirements outlined, and that he/she
understands that omission of any listed item may cause delay in processing the application. I (We), the undersigned,
acknowledge that the information supplied in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT:
Name (print): CQiMC, ' K='_
Address: r L, P~L Email:
City/State/Zip: ltk-oo ~ - Phone: Fax:
Signatur Date:
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT:
Name (print):
Address: Email:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
Signature: Date:
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT:
Name (print):
Address: Email:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
Signatu re: Date:
SURVEYOR:
Name (print):
Company/Organization:t.g° I s i
Address:;_ .
City/State/Zip: Phone: ` Fax: ~5
E-mail:
Signature Date: _ i
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division
99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail:eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 3 of 4September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
REPRESENTATIVE (If different from Surveyor):
Name (print):
Company/Organization:
Address:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
E-mail:
Signature:Date:
Attached additional sheets if necessary.
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division
99 W, 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail;eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 4 of 4September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
April 24, 2019
ANNEXATION APPLICATION
Property Location: Map 17-04-25-21, TL No. 3200
112 & 114 Hansen Lane
Eugene, OR. 97404
Owner: Craig and Holly Kohler
P.O. Box 377
Harrisburg OR 97446
Applicant: same as owner
Applicant's Poage Engineering and Surveying Inc.
Representative: P.O. Box 2527
Eugene, OR 97402
Contact: Jonathan Oakes
Phone: 541-485-4505; email: oakes@poage.net
WRITTEN STATEMENT
1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. Description of subject property:
Map and tax lot 17-04-25-21-03200 is approximately 0.6 acres in size. It is designated by the
Metro Plan as Low Density Residential. It is zoned R-1/low density residential with the
UL/urbanizable land overlay. The site contains two single family residences with a detached
garage serving one residence and a detached shed serving the other residence. These residences
are addressed as 112 & 114 Hansen Lane. At a future date, it is the intent of the owner to
partition the property in order to separate these two residences onto their own individual parcels.
The first step in that process is to annex to the City of Eugene. Tax Lot 3200 is contiguous to the
incorporated city limits of Eugene along the approximately 70 feet of its western boundary that is
contiguous with the boundary of Land Partition Plat No. 2004-P1838.
2. Summary of land use request:
The applicant requests to annex all of TL No. 3200, such that the /UL overlay will be removed.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
3. Application Contents
The information requirements for an annexation application are stated at EC 9.7810(1) through
10). The application form page 2 lists all the required information. That information has been
compiled here, as reflected in the check boxes on the application form.
4. Criteria for approval of annexation application:
EC 9.7825 provides the primary criteria applicable to an annexation application. This code
section refers to additional criteria (such as applicable Metro Plan policies) that will need to be
addressed as well.
EC 9.7825 Annexation -Approval Criteria. The city council shall approve,
modify and approve, or deny a proposed annexation based on the application's
consistency with the following:
7) The land proposed to be annexed is within the city's urban growth
boundary and is:
a) Contiguous to the city limits; or
b) Separated from the city only by a public right of way or a stream, bay,
lake or other body of water.
Applicant's proposed finding: The subject property is within the city's UGB. The subject
property is directly contiguous with the current city limits along the approximate 70 foot length
of the portion of it's western boundary that is contiguous with the eastern boundary of Land
Partition Plat No. 2004-P1838.
2) The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the
Metro Plan and in any applicable refinement plans. "
Applicant's proposed finding: The Metro Plan Policy 9, page 11-B-5, recognizes
annexations through this normal process to be the highest priority. As such, the proposal
is consistent with this policy
Metro Plan Policy 8, page 11-B-4, provides for annexation when a minimum level
of key facilities and services can be provided. This policy is the subject of the annexation
standard in (3) below.
Metro Plan Policy 15 provides that land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city
and provided with the minimum level of urban facilities and services. It further provides
that while the timeframe for annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land
transitions from urbanizable to urban. The property is within the UGB and therefore,
based on this policy, should be annexed. The provision of facilities and services is
addressed in standard (3) below. The property is designated LDR on the Metro Plan. The
property is currently zoned R-1 which is consistent with the low density residential
designation assigned to the site in the Metro Plan.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Metro Plan Policy 17 is instructional to the City to dissolve special service
districts after annexation and to consider intergovernmental agreements with affected
special service districts. The applicant does not object to dissolving special service
districts, as needed. The proposal is consistent with Policy 17.
Metro Plan Policy 19 stipulates the criteria that must be met in order to annex
territory to existing service districts within the UGB. This proposal is consistent with
Policy 19 in the fact that the key urban services are directly available to the property
making immediate annexation to the City a possibility and the affected property owners
have provided the signed consent to annex agreement with the City of Eugene in
accordance Oregon annexation law.
Metro Plan Policy 20 outlines the methodology for extending new urban service
to unincorporated areas within the UGB. This proposal is consistent with Policy 20 in the
fact that the applicant is requesting annexation to the City of Eugene, which is the highest
priority of all the methods outlined in Policy 20 for providing new urban service to
unincorporated areas within the UGB.
3) The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum
level of key urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can be
provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner. "
Applicant's proposed finding: The Metro Plan defines the "Minimum Level" of "key urban
facilities and services" as including
wastewater service, stormwater service, transportation, solid waste management,
water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, city-wide
parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication
facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis (in other words, not
necessarily within walking distance of all students served)."
Each of these facilities and services is addressed below.
In summary, the minimum level of key urban facilities and services is either immediately
available or can be provided within a reasonable future time frame as needed.
Wastewater services: When property is annexed to the city, it is automatically annexed
to the Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District, as provided for in ORS
199.510(2)(c). In the post-Boundary Commission era, the subject property will have to be
annexed to the MWSD in a separate action, following annexation to the city.
Currently, there is an 8" public wastewater line in Hansen Lane running along the entire northern
boundary of the subject property. Both residential structures located on the subject property are
connected to the existing wastewater main in Hansen Lane. Therefore, wastewater services
already exist to the subject property.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Stormwater services:
The public stormwater facility nearest the site is SD MH. No. 62242 located in Hansen Lane near
the intersection of Hansen Lane and River Road approximately 400' east of the subject property.
Current City stormwater policies require that stormwater be kept on-site and any run-off shall be
limited to predevelopment flows. Therefore, future development of the site will require an on-
site stormwater facility sized in accordance with the treatment guidelines of the City of Eugene
Stormwater Management Manual. The chosen treatment facility will need to be sized for flood
control since there is currently no connection available to the public sewer. This type of "key
urban facility" is available to the subject property.
Transportation:
The property has frontage on Hansen Lane along it's entire northern boundary. Hansen Lane is a
24' wide a.c. mat roadway with gravel shoulders and is classified as a local street on the City of
Eugene Street Classification Map. Hansen Lane connects to River Road which is classified as a
major arterial and through this classification it can be inferred that River Road provides the
subject property with access to the entire transportation network within the city limits and
surrounding area. Therefore, the subject property is served with this type of "key urban
facility."
Solid Waste Management: Private firms and individuals collect and transport solid
waste to the Lane County administered landfill. Therefore, the subject property is served with
this type of "key urban facility."
Water Service: Water is available from the 6" water main located in the north margin of
Hansen Lane. Therefore, the subject property is served with this type of "key urban facility."
Fire and emergency medical services: According to RLID, fire protection is currently
provided by
the River Road Water District. Upon annexation, the City of Eugene will provide
services directly to the property. Therefore, the subject property is served with this type of "key
urban facility."
Police Protection: Police protection will be provided by Eugene, which currently
services other properties inside the city. After annexation this property will receive police
services on an equal basis with all properties inside the city. Therefore, the subject property is
served with this type of "key urban facility."
City-wide parks and recreation programs: Park services are already provided to this
area, consistent with the Metro Plan. The subject property is located within the River Road Park
District an established park district. According to Lane County's GIS maps, there are two parks
within one mile of the subject property, Razor Park and Maurie Jacobs Park, as well as the West
Bank Bike Path.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Electric Service: The adjacent properties are served by EWEB, and service is available
at the property boundaries.
Land Use Controls: The subject property is now, and after annexation will continue to
be, subject to the land use controls of the City of Eugene.
Communication Facilities: Land line phone service, cellular phone and data service,
and cable television are available in the area, and can be extended to the subject property.
Public schools on a district-wide basis: The Eugene 4J School District serves the
annexation area. Existing schools are: River Road Elementary, Kelly Middle, and North Eugene
High Schools
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Consent to Annexation
Consent is hereby given to the annexation by the City of Eugene, Oregon of the
following described real property:
Map and Tax Lot: 11-~ Address: i IZ 4?k-r,1,e7iE , ~t . fE~u6f,_z 0-e-
11404
Legal Description:
In the corporate limits of said city, which is owned by the undersigned
DATED this day of
STATE OF OREGON )
ss
County of ~ 55 )
a
On this day of , 20~, before me, the undersigned, a
public in and for the said county nd state, personally appeared the within-named,
who is knVwn to me to be the identical individual described herein and who executed the same
freely and voluntarily.
Seal:
OFFICIAL STAMP
CHANEL CONSTANCE WOODWARD
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO, 959025
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 12, 2021
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
my find and seal the day and year last above
wriite n a k
Notary'Rubblic for Oregon
My Commission Expires 12-1~
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
V 4i
C"F-U
cm O
C-J r
s 00
W 2
c
g6,8.CP.Y h
py w
cr
C
4-
O
U
U
s
O
L
0
4-
L
a)
3
Z
O
c
ca
a)
H
41
4-
O
W N
1 c
a c O
x
a a
x
a
ro
a)
O
41
C
a
c
0
v
O
v
v
o
J u
v
i
tivo c
o
o
a)
bz U
o
U w
c a
N
O
II II II II L
O U w N S?
O O
N Q
01
c
V
uo n
u
o
C
0
c
0 0
3 L
v
U U w0 O
L
v
Q
Z,
U
n l
U
II a
LL a0
a-+
rCA.
a
a
U
CCU a
a
J
O
L
E O
M
Z o IOrn
0
xx
H n I 1 1v
CL C I y
G N
v U
0 U
a V N
c U
N
O1
F
a
a
v 1 t
Q) E
S
L
a
v
1 v
z
L
0
0
Q)
L
U
O
v
4-
a
c
c
O
to
x
M
I~
E
aJ C
i7iQ
O l
1 Q
4J Q
C Y L
L a
f6 y Y
aa)J v
Q
II
D v
c
73 i 7 4-1
a U UUU
ca ca
J Q J Q
vi ca ~ t
U
v
a
CL 3
co
i
v -
v ro
c Q
N U
a) a L v
4
o
c
Q)O o
t
4
o
r
Q E a,
N L ~1
4,1
a N
x
a~
c 0 -Q
o a, o c an
N OI
u v X N O
N x c v ov
a c Qa
ia
L
C a o a N v a
c
x
v v O0 c
a i o o c
c
c
i Ci c o tin aJ
L
Z v
O Q ti2S v
O Q N
L
W 4-
c
C o Q
O
a N
V L
w 4-1 Q)
v o
L c3i
O o° c
U O v4.
c v)
Q
V
Q nf°
U (p V)
ao
W
L
J O
O
F
L UW
V F-
r
T, O +
W
V I- +1 MxSeptember 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
e
Account No.:
LANE COUNTY
Account Type:
TCA:
Situs Address:
Legal:
Parties:
Property Account Summary
As Of 5/28/2019 Status: Active
0439099 Alternate Property Number: 1704252103200
Real Property
00412
112 HANSEN LN
EUGENE OR 97404
Township 17 Range 04 Section 25 Quarter 21 TL 03200
Role Name & Address
Mortgage WELLS FARGO REAL ESTATE TAX SERVICES LLC
Company UNKNOWN ADDRESS
UNKNOWN OR 97401
Owner KOHLER CRAIG N & HOLLY J
PO BOX 377
HARRISBURG OR 97446
Tax Service WELLS FARGO REAL ESTATE TAX SERVICE
Companies UNKNOWN ADDRESS
UNKNOWN OR 97401
Taxpayer KOHLER CRAIG N & HOLLY J
PO BOX 377
HARRISBURG OR 97446
Property Values:
Value Name 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
MKTTL 261,933 242,711 220,053 221,317 199,187
AVR 133,606 129,715 125,937 122,269 118,708
TVR 133,606 129,715 125,937 122,269 118,708
Property Characteristics:
Tax Year Characteristic Value
2018 Property Class 101 Res conforming improved
Change Property Ratio 1 XX Residential
Size 0.58
Code Split N
Neighborhood 431500
Exemptions:
End of Report)
Run: 5/28/2019 11:06:31 AM AS00037 [Ascend_Prod_Rpt] Page 1September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Summary of Urban Service Provision
This form is intended as a guide to assist applicants in demonstrating that a minimum level of
key urban services can be provided to the area proposed for annexation. Space is provided on
this form for you to provide detailed information on service provision. Please add additional
pages if necessary to provide details of servicing issues related to the area you are annexing. To
assist you in providing this information, some contacts are listed below. For large or difficult to
serve properties, you may wish to contact a private land use planning consultant to prepare
your application.
Property Owner(s) Name:
rat J{Oc K LC-"
Assessor's Map and Tax Lot Numbers for Properties Proposed for Annexation
For example: Map 17-03-19-31, Tax Lot 100)
i-7-04-Z,5 -2-4 -r 3ZOV
Wastewater All new development must connect to the wastewater (sanitary sewer) system.
Is wastewater service available to serve the area proposed for annexation? (For more
information, contact the Engineering staff at the City of Eugene Permit and Information Center
or call 541-682-8400.)
The property(ies) in this annexation request:
will be served from an existing gravity wastewater line.
Location and size of existing wastewater line:
t-' ' V- 1)aC OA-1A 4 i f' 4, f i 1~ ~ c~f~ L lk--' z-~
will be served by an extension of an existing gravity wastewater line.
Where will a wastewater line be extended from? When will it be extended? By whom?
Stormwater Site plans for all new development must provide for drainage to an approved
system consistent with the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. City approval for
storm drainage will be required as part of the development process. (For more information,
contact the Engineering staff at the City of Eugene Permit and Information Center or call 541-
682-8400.)
Is the site currently served by an approved stormwater system?
fit-C)
1 of 4 September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
If yes,
location?
If no, how will stormwater be handled after development? -
SY r 4v z_c~aA p A--L :T j tit t7 iN Q- t ITF FAk ~iiA-
Streets - What existing streets provide access to this site. List existing streets that provide
access to this site from River Road, the Northwest Expressway, or Beltline
Highway.
Will dedication for additional street right-of-way be required upon further development of this
site?
X Yes No Unknown
Will existing streets be extended or new streets constructed upon further development of this
site?
Yes No Unknown
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services
Systems Development revenues generated by new development and Ballot Measure 20-30,
which authorized the issuance of $25.3 million in general revenue bonds, will help to fund future
City park acquisition and development in this area and throughout the city. Please list the parks
and recreation facilities that already exist or are planned in the general vicinity of the
property(ies) included in this annexation:
ac~L laP~2 Au+-iE.,j;4Cyat:2 F-Av2-v-
Key services, defined by the Metropolitan Plan as parks and recreation programs, will be
available to new city residents in this area on an equal basis with residents throughout the city.
Public Safety
Police services - Police protection can be extended to this site upon annexation consistent with
service provision throughout the city.
2 of 4 September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
For River Road/Santa Clara area-
Police services - Police protection can be extended to this site upon annexation
consistent with service provision throughout the city. Police currently travel along River
Road to provide service to areas throughout the River Road and Santa Clara area. Infill
annexations and development in this area will increase the efficiency of service delivery
to this area.
Fire and emergency services (Please indicate which fire district serves subject property.)
Santa Clara - Fire protection services are currently provided to the
subject property by the Santa Clara Rural Fire Protection District.
River Road - Fire and emergency services - Fire protection is currently
provided to the subject property by the River Road Water District under contract
with the City of Eugene. Upon annexation, fire protection will be provided directly
by the City of Eugene Fire & EMS Department.
Emergency medical transport (i.e., ambulance) services are currently provided on a regional
basis by Eugene, Springfield, and Lane Rural Fire/Rescue to central Lane County, including the
River Road and Santa Clara areas. After annexation, this service will continue to be provided by
the current provider. All ambulance service providers have mutual aid agreements and provide
back-up service into the other providers' areas.
Planning and Development Services Planning and building permit services are provided to the
area outside the city limits but within the urban growth boundary by the City of Eugene. This
service would continue after annexation.
EWEB (Eugene Water and Electric Board) currently provides water and electric service in the
Eugene area and can provide service to new development in the River Road and Santa Clara
area upon annexation. Some properties in northern Eugene receive electric service from EPUD
Emerald People's Utility District). Some properties in south Eugene receive electric services
from the Lane Electric Cooperative; please note if this is the case for your property. For more
information contact EWEB, ph. 484- 2411, EPUD, ph. 746-1583 or Lane Electric Co-op, 484-1151.
Electric Service - Which electric company will serve this site?
Water Service Please provide the size and location of the water main closest to your
property.
Solid Waste Solid waste collection service is provided by private firms. Regional disposal sites
and the Short Mountain Landfill are operated by Lane County.
3 of 4 September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Natural Gas Northwest Natural Gas can extend service to new development in this area.
Communications US West Communications and a variety of other telecommunications
providers offer communications services throughout the Eugene/Springfield Area.
4 of 4 September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Legal Description for the Annexation
of
Assessor's Map No. 17-04-25-21 Tax Lot No. 3200
to the
City of Eugene
June 12, 2019
Beginning at a point 541.0 feet West and 150.0 feet North of a point in the center of the County
Road, known as the River Road, which point is North 8°40' West 1.77 chains from a point in the
south line of the Lemuel E. Davis Donation Land Claim No. 42, Notification No. 2083, in
Township 17 South, Range 4 West of the Willamette Meridian, 49.02 chains East from the
Southwest corner of said claim, and from said beginning point run North 210.3 feet; thence West
120.9 feet; thence South 210.3 feet and thence East 120.9 feet to the place of beginning, and
being a part of said Donation Land Claim No. 42, in Lane County Oregon.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
Certification of Description
Pursuant to EC 9.7810(7), Annexation Application Requirements, I hereby certify the
metes and bounds description of the real property proposed for annexation closes; and
the map outlining the boundary is a true representation of the description.
Signature:
Registered Land Surveyor
Print Name: CCU
Date: -J0 &Z'CE
Seal:
MMWAW
14: "R ME -DrPPRR8H'I SS10NAiL.
M[) SURVErYOR
OfMWN
gutt,104NATHANA. OA~~S
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
City of Eugene Planning
Method of Payment
Cash
Check
0 Visa/MC
Amount Received
5,155.70
PLANNING RECEIPT
DATE 6/13/2019
Customer Information
Name Craig & Holly Kohler
Address PO Box 377
Harrisburg OR 97446
Project 17-04-25-21-03200 112 & 114 Hansen
City/Government Agency
Appllcaflonaype Modificationconcurrent Qty Base Fee Discount Total
1 Annexation 1 $ 4,730.00 4,730.00
2
b
7
8
Other.
Other
Appeal 1
Appeal
Subtotal App Fees 4,730.00
Subtotal Other Fees
I Admin Fee (not included on appeals or other fees)9%425.70 ;
I
Total 5,155.70
Staff Receiving Application j
MHD
i
99 West 10th Avenue ® Eugene, Oregon ® 97401 ® 541-682-5377 m eugeneplanning.org
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
DUPLICATE RECEIPT DUPLICATE RECEIPT
CITY OF EUGENE
BUILDING & PERMIT SERVICE
99 WEST 10TH AVE 682-5086
REG-RECEIPT:1-0002834 Jun 13 2019
CASHIER: RMW
Annexation Fee $4,730.00
17-04-25-21-03200 / 112 / 114
Admin Fee-Auto Calc $425.70
TOTAL DUE: $5,155.70
RECEIVED FROM:
CRAIG KOHLER
Credit: $5,155.70
Total tendered: $5,155.70
Change due: $.00
www.eugene-or.gov/bldgpermittracking
Please take our customer survey at:
www.surveymonkey.com/s/COEPermitSurvey
DUPLICATE RECEIPT
DUPLICATE RECEIPT
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2C
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2D
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Adoption of a Resolution Annexing Land to the City of Eugene (Assessor’s Map 17-04-02-42, Tax Lot 402; Located 187 Swain Lane) (City File: Therrell, Mathew; A 19-2) Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2D Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Nicholas Gioello
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5453
ISSUE STATEMENT This item is a request to annex approximately 0.47 acre (approximately 20,473 square feet) of vacant land located on Swain Lane. No public right-of-way is proposed for annexation as part of this request. A vicinity map is provided as Attachment A. The property is zoned AG Agricultural with /UL Urbanizable Land Overlay. Both the Metro Plan and the applicable refinement plan, the River Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, designate the subject property for Low Density Residential use. The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is contiguous to other properties within the City limits along the north property boundary and a portion of the south property boundary. Annexation will allow for future development consistent with the property’s land use designation and the Eugene Code. For this property to further develop as residential property, a zone change to R-1 Low-Density Residential will be necessary. Specific plans for future development of the site are not included as part of this annexation application.
BACKGROUND To encourage compact urban growth and sequential development within Eugene’s UGB, the Metro Plan provides that ultimately all land within the UGB will be annexed into the City and provided with a minimum level of urban services. Approval of annexation requests are based on the criteria at Eugene Code 9.7825 which require that (1) the land proposed to be annexed is within the City’s UGB and is contiguous to the City limits or separated from City limits only by a right-of-way or water body; (2) the proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in any applicable refinement plans; and (3) the proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimal level of key urban facilities and services can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner. Findings demonstrating that the annexation request is consistent with these approval criteria are included as Exhibit C to the attached draft resolution (Attachment B).
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2D
To provide nearby property owners and residents an opportunity to review and comment on this annexation request, public notice was provided to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject property and the affected neighborhood association (Santa Clara Community Organization), consistent with Eugene Code requirements. No testimony has been received to date regarding the proposed annexation of this property. Referral comments were provided by affected agencies including City of Eugene Public Works and Eugene Water & Electric Board. These referral comments confirm there are no concerns with the proposed annexation and the property can be provided with the minimum level of key urban services consistent with the approval criteria. Additional background information regarding this request, including relevant application materials, is included for reference as Attachment C. A full copy of all materials in the record is also available at the Permit and Information Center located at 99 West 10th Avenue.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION None.
COUNCIL OPTIONS City Council may consider the following options: 1. Adopt the draft resolution 2. Adopt the draft resolution with specific modifications as determined by the City Council 3. Deny the draft resolution 4. Defer action until after the council holds a public hearing on the proposed annexation
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the draft resolution by finding that the request complies with all applicable approval criteria, and that the annexation be approved.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt a resolution to approve the proposed annexation request consistent with the applicable approval criteria.
ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Draft Annexation Resolution with Exhibits A through C Exhibit A: Map of Annexation Request Exhibit B: Legal Description Exhibit C: Planning Director Findings and Recommendation C. Application Materials for Annexation Request
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2D
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Nicholas R. Gioello Telephone: 541-682-5453 Staff E-Mail: NGioello@eugene-or.gov
^
Caution: This map is based onimprecise source data, subject tochange, and for general reference only.
Therrell, Mathew (A 19-2)
Subject PropertyEugene City LimitsTaxlots
0 50 10025Ft
SH
A
N
N
O
N
S
T
SWAIN LN
DUBLIN AVE
LIMERICK AVE
SC
O
T
T
D
A
L
E
S
T
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
S
T
Created on 8/20/2019by City of Eugene Planning Division
N
Attachment AMap/Tax Lot 17-04-02-42-00402
City Limits
City Limits
Subject Property
Resolution - Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION ANNEXING LAND TO THE CITY OF EUGENE
(ASSESSOR’S MAP 17-04-02-42, TAX LOT 402, LOCATED 187 SWAIN
LANE).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.An annexation application was submitted on March 15, 2019, by Matthew Therrell
in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.7810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, (“EC”) to annex
property identified as Assessor’s Map 17-04-02-42, Tax Lot 402, to the City of Eugene.
B.The property proposed to be annexed is depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A
to this Resolution. The legal description of the property proposed to be annexed is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit B.
C.The City’s Planning Director has submitted a written recommendation that the
application be approved based on the criteria of EC 9.7825. The Planning Director’s Findings and
Recommendation is attached as Exhibit C.
D.On August 9, 2019, a notice containing the street address, the assessor’s map and
tax lot number for the property, a description of the land proposed to be annexed, and the Planning
Director’s preliminary recommendation was mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of
properties located within 500 feet of the perimeter of the subject property, and the Santa Clara
Community Organization. The notice advised that the City Council would consider the Planning
Director’s full recommendation on the proposed annexation on September 9, 2019.
E.After considering the Planning Director’s recommendation, the City Council finds
that the application should be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based on the above findings and the Planning Director’s Findings and
Recommendation which are attached as Exhibit C and are adopted in support of this Resolution, it
is ordered that the land identified as Assessor’s Map 17-04-02-42, Tax Lot 402, which is depicted
on the map attached as Exhibit A, and more particularly described in the attached Exhibit B, is
annexed to the City of Eugene.
Section 2. This Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council.
The annexation and the automatic rezoning of the land pursuant to EC 9.7820(3) from AG
Attachment B
Resolution - Page 2 of 2
Agricultural with /UL Urbanizable Land Overlay to AG Agricultural shall become effective in
accordance with State law.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____day of September, 2019.
______________________________________
City Recorder
ANNEXATION-SITE PLAN
FOR
THERRELL
J • • -l
j
SE 1/4, SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 17 SOUTH, RANGE 4 WEST, W.M. ��-.. �;
SCALE 1" = 30'
EUGENE, LANE COUNTY, OREGON
DATE PREPARED: JUNE 2019
CITY LIMITS
(0Ol w b9 <O 00Cl)
approximate location
of existing structures
per aerial photo
7.00' PUE
45.00' , ___ _, w _J I<( w Cl WI-a:::I- 1-
- L.
: 5
j,:jl _, .. . --...!it'"�" IIQ••Ct ·>
ELDON PARK BK 48 PG 20 8 (/) VICINITY MAP
NOTTO SCALE
CITY LIMITS N85 °54'00"E 204.38'
�� ;(\:;::;::�:� :;
AREA TO BE ANNEXED
21,099 SQ. FT.
,,. ) ............. . /�//.io' ..... . / ,:-.<:' (() • • • • • • / c,'<':+-I� . . . . . . .
// �� ,,_, T-/ o..:r-�· ,_ I 9 • • • • • _.// .o � oP co ""/ �.._o-()o � "v p • • • • • . co
/ -���e ... <vvw�� ,� ...... �
/ �<vfS ��0�
0
�
• • • • • • t,:-.0 {/'0 �0 ·······:: /�o�o
<v�,,,0�'lf,'l> / /I . • • • • • �/ /--1 •••••• ·1
N44 °04'36"W 2' / / �-:-' • • • • • • • • • c,'<>-'l.e • • • ///4 __ -. -:-. . . . ·o • • • .c:.
. J/ /-•-•••• ,o5' • • • • • • • • 0>.,,0 �e\
• • • r-----.JN87 °53'51"W 7' -z---../f-�s•'35"' o�e,�'<>-� � S45°55'24"W -\O� o� �e L /-/-r" . s,6 . . . . . . . . . . o'i:>e 1>'\ �\ • • • •
N89 o54'00"E 58.14' -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • <? ,;;,oo <,;,'<>-'i:>e • • • • ••
-�rcc�IT�Y(LLIIMMnlT�S--�,-��������·�·�
·
•••••••••••••••••••••••• 15'9.: o?', • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
40.00' SWAIN LANE
S87 °53'51"E 10' /' 7 :76', ..;,6'�' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •·6'7, ?'6'� 'd', • • • • • • • • N S88 °06'36"E 130',, • • • • • • • • •
METRO PLANNING, INC
846ASTREET
SPRINGFIELD, OR. 97477
541-302-9830
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
A
ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 4, Block 1, ELDON PARK, as platted and recorded in Book 48, Page 20, Lane County Oregon Plat
Records, in Lane County, Oregon.
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Therrell (A 19-2) August 2019 Page 1
Planning Director’s Findings and Recommendation
Annexation Request for Therrell, Matthew
(City File: A 19-2)
Application Submitted: March 15, 2019
Applicant: Matthew Therrell
Property Included in Annexation Request: Tax Lot 00402 of Assessor’s Map 17-04-02-42
Zoning: AG Agricultural with /UL Urbanizable Land Overlay
Location: 187 Swain Lane
Representative: Jed Truett, Metro Planning, Inc.
Lead City Staff: Nicholas Gioello, City of Eugene Planning Division, 541-682-5453
EVALULATION:
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the City has determined that this request complies
with Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.7805 Annexation - Applicability. As such, it is subject to review and
approval in accordance with the requirements, application criteria and procedures of EC 9.7800 through
9.7835. The applicable approval criteria are presented below in bold typeface with findings and
conclusions following each.
EC 9.7825(1) The land proposed to be annexed is within the city’s urban growth boundary and is:
(a) Contiguous to the city limits; or
(b) Separated from the city only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other
body of water.
Complies Findings: The annexation area is within the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB) and is
contiguous to the City limits consistent with subsection (a). As shown in the application
materials and confirmed by City staff, the City limits are contiguous with the subject area
of land along the north property line and a portion of the south property line.
YES
NO
EC 9.7825(2) The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in
any applicable refinement plans.
Complies Findings: Several policies from the Metro Plan provide support for this annexation by
encouraging compact urban growth to achieve efficient use of land and urban service
provisions within the UGB, including the following policies from the Growth
Management section (in italic text):
Policy 8. 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. (page II-C-4)
Policy 10. Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the
highest priority. (page II-C-5).
YES
NO
Exhibit C
Therrell (A 19-2) August 2019 Page 2
Policy 15. Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with
the required minimum level of urban facilities and services. While the time
frame for annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions
from urbanizable to urban. (page II-C-5)
The following policy from the Residential Element of the Metro Plan is also applicable:
Policy A.2 Residentially designated land within the UGB should be zoned consistent with
the Metro Plan, and applicable plans and policies; however, existing
agricultural zoning may be continued within the area between the city limits
and UGB until rezoned for urban uses.
The Metro Plan designates the property to be annexed as appropriate for low-density
residential use. The River Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RR/SC UFP) is the
adopted refinement plan for the subject property and designates the area for residential
uses. The property is zoned AG Agricultural with /UL Urbanizable Land overlay. The /UL
overlay will be automatically removed from the property following annexation approval.
With regard to applicable policies of the RR/SC UFP, none of the general “Residential
Land Use Policies” at Section 2.2 appear to be directly applicable to the subject request.
The “Public Facilities and Services Element” policies of the RR/SC UFP are directed at
local government; however, the premise of these policies (regarding the provision of
urban services) is the assumption that property within the UGB will be annexed.
As previously discussed in this subsection, and further detailed under subsection (3)
below, the proposed annexation is consistent with Metro Plan growth management
policies and can be served by the minimum level of key urban services. The annexation
procedures beginning at EC 9.7800 are consistent with State law and therefore, as found
throughout this report, the annexation is consistent with State law.
Therefore, based on the findings above, the proposal is consistent with the applicable
policies of the Metro Plan and RR/SC UFP refinement plan.
EC 9.7825(3) The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level of key
urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can be provided in an
orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
Complies Findings: Consistent with this criterion, the proposed annexation will result in a
boundary in which the minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be
provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner as detailed below:
Wastewater
The subject property is connected to the city service via a 4-inch tap to a 6-inch line
located in the southwest corner of the lot. An 8-inch city line is located within the Swain
Lane right-of-way.
YES
NO
Exhibit C
Therrell (A 19-2) August 2019 Page 3
Stormwater
Public stormwater is available via a 30-inch line that extends eastward from the terminus
of the Scottsdale Street, across an abutting property, to the northeast corner of the
subject property. There is an open waterway with a northerly flow across the subject
property from the south property line that channels runoff flow into the 30-inch pipe at
the northeast property corner. There is a Public Utility Easement for the maintenance of
this waterway in place that was rededicated in a previous land Use application (VEU18-
05) to encompass the current landscape along the full channel. Soils in this area appear
to be type “C” indicating poor infiltration rates. Future development proposals must
demonstrate consistency with flood control standards.
Transportation
The property has access and frontage on Swain Lane, which is an unimproved local road,
lacking sidewalks, curbs, street lights and street trees. Swain Lane is owned by the City
and provides direct access to River Road which is a minor arterial owned and maintained
by Lane County Public Works. River Road leads to the major thoroughfares in the City.
Along the north property line, there is a reserve strip separating “The Commons”
subdivision (2005) which is developed to city standards including stormwater and sewer
facilities, street lights sidewalks and street trees. Compliance with applicable street
standards will be ensured at the time of development
Since Swain Lane is not under the jurisdiction of Lane County, the County’s
Transportation Planning did not provide comments.
Solid Waste
Collection service is provided by private firms. Regional disposal sites and the Short
Mountain Landfill are operated by Lane County.
Water and Electric
EWEB Water staff state no objection to the annexation. EWEB Electric staff also state no
objection to the annexation. Water and electric services can be extended to the subject
property in accordance with EWEB policies and procedures.
Public Safety
Police protection can be extended to this site upon annexation consistent with service
provision through the City. Fire protection will be provided by Eugene Springfield Fire.
Emergency medical services are currently provided on a regional basis by the cities of
Eugene and Springfield to central Lane County and will continue in the same manner
upon annexation.
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation programs are provided on a City-wide basis. The inclusion of the
subject property in the City is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the minimum level of
this key urban service is met.
Exhibit C
Therrell (A 19-2) August 2019 Page 4
Planning and Development Services
Planning and building permit services are provided for all properties located within the
urban growth boundary by the City of Eugene. The Eugene Code, Chapter 9, will provide
the required land use controls for future development of the subject property upon
annexation.
Communications
A variety of telecommunications providers offer communications services throughout
the Eugene/Springfield area.
Public Schools
The subject property is within Eugene School District 4J and is within the district
boundary of Awbrey Park Elementary School, Madison Middle School, and North Eugene
High School. As access to schools is evaluated on a district wide basis, the property’s
location within the school district is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the minimum
level of this key urban service is met.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the above findings, information submitted to date, and the criteria set forth in EC 9.7825, the
proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable approval criteria. A map and legal description
showing the area subject to annexation are included in the application file for reference. The effective
date is set in accordance with State law.
Matthew Therrell 1 | Page
ANNEXATION APPLICATION FOR
MATTHEW THERRELL
Submittal No.: 1
Document Date: March 15, 2019
Applicant’s Request: Approval of annexation of property located at 187 Swain Lane.
Property Owner/ Applicant: Matthew Therrell 474 W 29th Ave Eugene, Oregon 97405
Applicant’s Representative/
Planner/Project Coordinator:
Metro Planning, Inc. c/o Sophie McGinley, Assistant Planner 846 A Street Springfield, OR 97477 Tel (541) 302-9830
Subject Property: Map 17-04-02-42; Tax Lot 00402
Location: 187 Swain Lane
Property Size: 0.47 acres
Zoning: AG – Agricultural UL - Urbanizable Land
Future Development Plans Proposed
with this Annexation:
N/A
WRITTEN STATEMENT
Attachment C
Matthew Therrell 2 | Page
Background
This is an annexation application for approximately 0.47 acre site, located at 187 Swain Lane, in an area zoned Agricultural (AG). The subject property is in the Urbanizable Land Overlay District, (UL), as it is located outside City of Eugene city limits, but within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The tax lot on the subject property is contiguous to city limits on two sides. The proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s Metro Plan designation, showing the land within the UGB and included in these plan diagrams.
To facilitate city staff review of this annexation application, this written statement clearly demonstrates how the development meets the Annexation application criteria of EDC 9.7825 Criteria. The Eugene Development Code (EDC) text sections are in bold and/or italics and the responses are included in plain text.
Annexations
9.7825 Annexation – Approval Criteria. The city council shall approve, modify and approve, or deny a proposed annexation based on the application’s consistency with the following:
1. The land proposed to be annexed is within the city’s urban growth boundary and is: a. Contiguous to the city limits; or b. Separated from the city only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other body of water. The subject property Tax Lot 00402 is contiguous to city limits on two sides: the northern and southwestern property lines adjacent to Tax Lot 00402.
2. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in any applicable refinement plans. The subject property is located within the City’s urban growth boundary and in an area zoned Agricultural (AG). The Metro Plan diagram indicates that the property is designated for medium density residential development. The area is within the Santa Clara Community Organization and the River Road- Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. Additionally, the subject property is in the River Road/Wilkes subarea in the River Road. Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan. River Road- Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan standards are addressed below. Upon approval of this proposed annexation by the City Council the property will be zoned AG and the Urban Land (UL) Overlay will automatically cease to apply.
As further detailed in subsection (3), the proposed annexation is consistent with Metro Plan growth management policies and can be served by the minimum level of key urban services.
Several other policies from the Metro Plan provide support for this annexation by encouraging compact urban growth to achieve efficient use of land and urban service provisions within the UGB, including the following policies from the Growth Management section:
Metro Plan Growth Management Policies:
Policy 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. (page 11-C-3)
The proposed annexation includes land within the UGB and outside city limits. Annexing such land would create more opportunity for compact urban growth. The land is within the UGB, therefore ensuring the provision of all urban services will be concentrated inside the UGB.
Policy 8: Land within the UGB may be converted from urbanizable to urban only through annexation to a city when it is found that: (page 11-C-4)
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.
The minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be provided to the area in an orderly and efficient manner.
Matthew Therrell 3 | Page
Policy 10: Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the highest priority. (Pahe 11-C-4)
This annexation application adheres to normal processes and therefore complies to this policy.
Policy 16: Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with the required minimum level of urban facilities and services. While the time frame for annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to urban. (page 11-C-5)
This annexation application is for land designated as urbanizable within the UGB. Annexation allows for urbanizable land to transition to urban.
9.9610 River Road – Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Policies.
1. General Land Use. Minimize land use conflicts by promoting compatibility between land uses, especially among residential, commercial-industrial, and commercial-agricultural uses. (policy 1)
The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary and is zoned agricultural with an urbanizable land overlay. Upon annexation, the urbanizable land overlay will cease to apply and the land will be zoned agricultural. The subject property is located within the Metro Plan boundary and is designated as Medium Density residential. The non-conforming zoning will be a result of a pre-existing condition which, therefore, will minimize land use conflicts between land uses.
2. Residential Land Use.
a. Recognize and maintain the predominately low-density residential character of the area consistent with the Metro Plan (Policy 1)
The subject property is currently occupied by a single-family residential home. This maintains the predominately low-density residential character of the area.
b. Evaluate traffic and compatibility impacts when considering new residential development on parcels fronting arterial streets. (Policy 3)
The subject property does not have frontage on an arterial street, nor is any new residential development proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
c. Provide adequate buffering and traffic control for existing non-residential development fronting River Road, (to minimize conflicts with surrounding development). (Policy 4)
The subject property does not have frontage on River Road, nor is any new residential development proposed with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply
d. Permit medium-density housing (10 to 20 dwelling units/acre) in proximity to existing or planned urban facilities. Access to commercial development, transit, and alternative modes of transportation, schools and parks, and open space should be considered. Medium-density residential development will be considered for the north Santa Clara area consistent with the above criteria. (Policy 5)
No development is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
e. Design residential development which is adjacent to the Greenway, parks, and other identified natural features in a manner that ensures its compatibility with those features. (Policy 6)
No development is associated with this application. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
15. River Road/Wilkes
a. Consolidate commercial development for property south of Swain Lane and bounded by the slough on the east and Greenwood Street on the south.
Matthew Therrell 4 | Page
This annexation application does not include commercial development and is north of Swain Lane. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
b. Rezone split-zone tax lots.
This annexation application does not include split-zone tax lots. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
c. Designate medium-density development on the easterly portion of the large undeveloped parcel north of Swain Lane.
The subject property is sited on the easterly portion of the north of Swain Lane and is zoned Medium Density in the Metro Plan. The property is currently zoned Agricultural and will continue to be zoned Agricultural after annexation as an existing condition. Annexation will allow the subject property to adhere to Metro Plan designation by creating necessary conditions for a possible future zone change.
d. Designate community commercial development on the westerly portion of the large undeveloped parcel north of Swain Lane. Only commercial developments making unified use of five or more acres shall be allowed in the area.
This annexation application does not include commercial development. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
e. Encourage commercial development contiguous to existing commercial used east of River Road.
This annexation application does not include commercial development. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
f. Encourage low-density zoning for property south of Brothertown, across from River Loop #2.
The subject property is not sited south of Brothertown. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
g. Designate neighborhood commercial development for two acres on the northwest corner of Irvington and River Road. Only commercial developments making unified use of one or more acres and with access limited to Irvington Drive, shall be allowed in the area.
This annexation application does not include commercial development. Therefore, this standard does not apply.
3. The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level of key urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
The proposed boundary results in key urban facilities and services provided in an orderly, efficient and timely manner. Utilities required to serve the property are located within the right-of-way as shown on the Site Plan.
Electric power facilities are currently provided by Eugene Water and Electric Board, natural gas facilities are provided by Northwest Natural, and wastewater and storm sewer lines are existing.
As discussed below, public services are in place and readily available to the properties proposed for annexation. Because of the proximity to the surrounding urban facilities, services can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
-Electrical service is provided by EWEB.-Water service will be transferred to EWEB upon annexation. Water mains are accessible from multiplelocations.-Santa Clara RFPD currently provides fire service to the area. Upon annexation, service will be provided byEugene Springfield Fire.-Tax lots 00402 can be accessed via Swain Lane, allowing transportation access from the West.
Matthew Therrell 5 | Page
-The property is within the Eugene School District 4J and is within the district boundaries of Awbrey ParkElementary School, Madison Middle School, and North Eugene High School.-Garbage collection service is provided by private firms. Regional disposal sites and the Short MountainLandfill are operated by Lane County.-Police protection can be extended to this site upon annexation consistent with service provision throughoutthe City.-Emergency medical services are currently provided on a regional basis by the Cities of Eugene andSpringfield to central Lane County and will continue in the same manner upon annexation.-A minimum level of park service can be provided to the proposal area as prescribed in the Metro Plan.-Planning and building permit services are provided for all properties located within the urban growthboundary by the City of Eugene. The Eugene Code, Chapter 9, will provide the required land use controls forfuture development of the subject property upon annexation.-A variety of telecommunications providers offer communications throughout the Eugene/Springfield area.
If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at Metro Planning via email (sophie@metroplanning.com) or phone (541-302-9830).
Regards,
Sophie McGinley Assistant Planner
ANNEXATION
www.eugene-or.gov/planning
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division Updated: September, 2012
99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail:eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 1 of 4
Please complete the following application checklist. Note that additional information may be required upon further
review in order to adequately address the applicable criteria for approval. If you have any questions about filling out this
application, please contact Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center, phone (541)682-5377, 99 West 10th
Avenue, Eugene.
List all Assessor’s Map and Tax Lot numbers of the property included in the request.
Assessor’s Map Tax Lot Zoning Acreage
Property Address:
Plans for Future Development & Permit Number (if applicable):
Public Service Districts:
Name
Parks:
Electric:
Water:
Sanitary Sewer:
Fire:
Schools: Elementary: Middle: High:
Other:
Filing Fee
A filing fee must accompany all applications. The fee varies depending upon the type of application and is adjusted
periodically by the City Manager. Check with Planning staff at the Permit and Information Center to determine the
required fee or check website at www.eugeneplanning.org
Written Statement (Submit 5 copies)
Submit a detailed written statement describing how this request is consistent with all applicable criteria (Section
9.7825 of the Eugene Code).
Enter Document Title
www.eugene-or.gov/planning
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division Updated: September, 2012
99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail:eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 2 of 4
Site Plan Requirements
Submit 3 paper copies and 1 digital copy of a site plan, drawn to an engineer’s scale on 8 ½” x 11" sheet of paper. Site plans
shall include the following information:
Show the date & north arrow on site plan.
Show the Assessor’s Map and Tax Lot number(s) on the site plan.
Show a vicinity map on the site plan (vicinity map does not need to be to scale).
Show city limits & UGB (if applicable)
Clearly label the affected territory and any public right of ways to be annexed.
Show all adjacent streets, alleys, and accessways.
Show all dimensions of existing public utility easements and any other areas restricting use of the parcels, such as
conservation areas, slope easements, access easements, etc.
Show the location of all existing structures.
Other Application Requirements (Submit 3 paper copies and 1 digital copy of all)
Petition for Annexation form listing all owners, including partial owners, and electors. This form includes the
Certification of Electors which must be signed by the Lane County Elections/Voter Registration Department and also
includes the Verification (Certification) of Property Owners which must be signed by the Lane County Department of
Assessment and Taxation. This form is required even if the land is vacant.
Notarized Consent to Annexation form.
A legal description of the land proposed for annexation, including any public right of way prepared by a registered
land surveyor. Oregon Revised Statues (ORS) 308.225 requires submittal of a closing metes and bounds description
or subdivision block and lot number description. Please see example of acceptable legal descriptions contained in
the application packet. The legal description must exactly correspond with the map included with the application or
the Assessor’s map.
Summary of Urban Service Provision form.
Census Information Sheet.
Note: This is not a complete list of requirements. Additional information may be required after further review in order
to adequately address the applicable approval criteria.
Enter Document Title
www.eugene-or.gov/planning
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division Updated: September, 2012
99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail:eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 3 of 4
By signing, the undersigned certifies that he/she has read and understood the submittal requirements outlined, and that he/sh e
understands that omission of any listed item may cause delay in processing the application. I (We), the undersigned,
acknowledge that the information supplied in this application is complete and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT:
Name (print):
Address: Email:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
Signature: Date:
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT:
Name (print):
Address: Email:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
Signature: Date:
PROPERTY OWNER OF TAX LOT:
Name (print):
Address: Email:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
Signature: Date:
SURVEYOR:
Name (print):
Company/Organization:
Address:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
E-mail:
Signature: Date:
Enter Document Title
www.eugene-or.gov/planning
Planning & Development Updated: December 2016
Planning Division Updated: September, 2012
99 W. 10TH Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541.682.5377 or E-mail:eugeneplanning@ci.eugene.or.us Page 4 of 4
REPRESENTATIVE (If different from Surveyor):
Name (print):
Company/Organization:
Address:
City/State/Zip: Phone: Fax:
E-mail:
Signature: Date:
**Attached additional sheets if necessary.
Real Property Tax Lot Record
Lane County Assessment and Taxation
Print Date: May 23, 2018
In preparation of these records, every effort has been made to offer the most current, correct, and clearly
expressed information possible. Nevertheless, inadvertent errors in information may occur. In particular but
without limiting anything here, Lane County disclaims any responsibility for typographical errors and accuracy
of this information. The information and data included on Lane County servers have been compiled by Lane
County staff from a variety of sources, and are subject to change without notice to the User. Lane County
makes no warranties or representations whatsoever regarding the quality, content, completeness, suitability,
adequacy, sequence, accuracy, or timeliness of such information and data.
The legal descriptions contained herein are for tax lot purposes only.
Included in this report:
A listing of documents affecting ownership and/or property boundary changes.1.
The scanned tax lot record image and any legal description changes made since .2.
Map & Tax Lot 1704024200402
Status Active
Current Parcel/Account Current TCA
0343184 00417
Document #Type Date Effective Year Tax Lot Acres
2017-062761 Warranty Deed 12/21/2017 2018 0.00
Comments:
2017-058699 Death Certificate 11/23/2011 2018 0.00
Comments:
Description Card 0.00
Comments:
Certification of Description
Pursuant to EC 9.7810(7), Annexation Application Requirements, I hereby certify the
metes and bounds description of the real property proposed for annexation closes; and
the map outlining the boundary is a true representation of the description.
Signature:
Registered Land Surveyor
Print Name:
Date:
Seal:
Ryan Erickson, PLS
03/15/2019
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Adoption of a Resolution Annexing Rights-of-Way to the City of Eugene (Sections of: Harvey Avenue; Maynard Avenue from River Road West: Hatton Avenue West to Parnell Drive: Manzana Street from Howard South: and Evergreen Drive from Howard Avenue South to Rosetta Avenue.) (Hatton Annexation; A 19-4) Meeting Date: September 9, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 2E Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Dan Halverson
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5410
ISSUE STATEMENT As directed by City Council, this item is a request to annex five sections of right-of-way into the Eugene City limits. The proposed annexation includes a section of Harvey Avenue; a section of Maynard Avenue from River Road west; a section of Hatton Avenue west to Parnell Drive; Manzana Street from Howard Avenue south; and Evergreen Drive from Howard Avenue south to Rosetta Avenue. All sections are within the City’s Urban Growth Boundary. A map showing the location of these street sections is included as Attachment A. The purpose of this annexation is to create clear boundaries for police, parking services, and other City services, which increases the effectiveness and efficiency of these services. In the current case, parking on these sections of road are not consistently enforced, which has created a public safety concern. Annexation will also allow for future road improvements that will benefit residents in the area.
BACKGROUND The City of Eugene’s parking program responds to parking complaints across the City of Eugene. The program has one parking services officer to address parking concerns outside of the downtown to campus-regulated parking areas. The patchwork of right-of-way jurisdictional authority within the City of Eugene’s urban growth boundary creates difficulty in responding to some parking complaints. Hatton Avenue is one such area that has Lane County and City of Eugene jurisdiction. Parking complaints on Hatton Avenue started in September 2015 and increased over time due to the overflow parking from the adjacent apartment complex. In partnership with the River Road Community Organization, City and County staff met with area residents on November 8, 2017, to discuss the Hatton Avenue area parking challenges. Options and challenges for parking enforcement were discussed at the meeting, including the City annexing all or portions of Hatton Avenue. There was general agreement at the meeting that annexing Hatton Avenue to allow the City to enforce parking code would improve livability.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
However, there were concerns that it would also push the parking problem to adjoining streets. It may be appropriate to look at a larger area of roads to consider annexation to address current and future parking issues. An annexation may be initiated by motion of City Council or by the filing of an application. On February 12, 2018, City Council held a work session to discuss the possible annexation of the streets around the Hatton Avenue area. Following a staff presentation of options, council directed the City Manager to begin the annexation process to include Hatton Avenue and surrounding streets. A door-to-door survey was completed for more public information in the areas of the proposed annexation following a May 10, 2018, meeting to formalize the streets to be annexed. A follow-up outreach letter was sent on May 28, 2019, to the surrounding neighborhood notifying residents of the intent to annex the streets.
Annexation Process To encourage compact urban growth and sequential development within Eugene’s UGB, the Metro Plan provides that ultimately all land within the UGB (including streets) will be annexed into the City and provided with a minimum level of urban services. Approval of annexation requests are based on the criteria at EC 9.7825 which require that (1) the land proposed to be annexed is within the City’s UGB and is contiguous to the City limits or separated from City limits only by a right-of-way or water body; (2) the proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in any applicable refinement plans and (3) the proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimal level of key urban facilities and services can be provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner. Findings demonstrating that the annexation request is consistent with these approval criteria are included as Exhibit C to the attached draft resolution (Attachment B). To provide nearby property owners and residents an opportunity to review and comment on this annexation request, public notice was provided to all owners and occupants of property within 500 feet of the street rights-of-way, and the affected neighborhood association (River Road Community Organization), consistent with Eugene Code requirements. In response to this public notice, one letter of support was received from Shannon Bursofsky and is included as Attachment D. Given the findings of compliance and limited testimony received, a public hearing is not recommended in this instance. Additional background information regarding this request, including relevant application materials, is included for reference as Attachment C. A full copy of all materials in the record is also available at the Permit and Information Center located at 99 West 10th Avenue.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION February 12, 2018, Work Session Move to direct the City Manager to begin the annexation process for streets included in Option B and bring back for council approval. (Motion passed)
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
COUNCIL OPTIONS City Council may consider the following options: 1. Adopt the resolution 2. Adopt the resolution with specific modifications as determined by the City Council 3. Deny the resolution 4. Defer action until after the council holds a public hearing on the proposed annexation
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution by finding that the request complies with all applicable approval criteria, and that the annexation be approved.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to adopt a resolution approving the proposed annexation request consistent with the applicable approval criteria.
ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Annexation Resolution with Exhibits A through C Exhibit A: Map of Annexation Request Exhibit B: Legal Description Exhibit C: Planning Director Findings and Recommendation C. Application Materials for Annexation Request D. Public Testimony
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Dan Halverson Telephone: 541-682-5410 Staff E-Mail: DHalverson@eugene-or.gov
Caution: This map is based onimprecise source data, subject tochange, and for general reference only.
HATTON AVENUE Area Annexation
H AR
S H E L S C T
P A R N E L L D R
M
A
N
Z
A
N
A
S
T
HARVEY
AVE
HATTON AVE
E HATTON
AVE
MANZANA
ST
A
N
D
E
R
S
E
N
L
N
MAYNARD AVE E MAYNARD AVE
GARTH LN
HOWARD AVE
EV
ER
G R E EN
D
R
B E T T Y L N
BRIANA LN
HARVEY AVE
R
I
V
E
R
R
D
M A N Z A N A S T
B
A
R
T
O
N
S
T
ROSETTA AVE
LINDNER LN
Created on 8/8/2019by City of Eugene Planning Division
Attachment ARight‐Of‐Way Annexation ‐ Various Streets
HattonROWannex
Eugene City Limits
Taxlots
012525062.5
FtSeptember 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
Resolution - Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. _____
RESOLUTION ANNEXING RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO THE CITY OF
EUGENE (SECTIONS OF: HARVEY AVENUE; MAYNARD AVENUE
FROM RIVER ROAD WEST; HATTON AVENUE WEST TO PARNELL
DRIVE; MANZANA STREET FROM HOWARD SOUTH; AND
EVERGREEN DRIVE FROM HOWARD AVENUE SOUTH TO ROSETTA
AVENUE).
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.An annexation application was submitted on June 25, 2019, by the City of Eugene,
in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.7810 of the Eugene Code, 1971, (“EC”) to annex
to the City of Eugene a section of Harvey Avenue; Maynard Avenue from River Road west; Hatton
Avenue west to Parnell Drive; Manzana Street from Howard south; and Evergreen Drive from
Howard Avenue south to Rosetta Avenue.
B.The rights-of-way proposed to be annexed are depicted on the map attached as
Exhibit A to this Resolution. The legal descriptions of the rights-of-way proposed to be annexed
are attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.
C.The City’s Planning Director has submitted a written recommendation that the
application be approved based on the criteria of EC 9.7825. The Planning Director’s Findings and
Recommendation is attached as Exhibit C.
D.On September 9, 2019, a notice containing a geographical reference to the rights-
of-way, a description of the rights-of-way proposed to be annexed, and the Planning Director’s
preliminary recommendation was mailed to the applicant, owners and occupants of properties
located within 500 feet of the perimeter of the subject portions of right-of-way, and the River Road
Community Organization. The notice advised that the City Council would consider the Planning
Director’s full recommendation on the proposed annexation on September 9, 2019.
E.After considering the Planning Director’s recommendation, the City Council finds
that the application should be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. Based on the above findings and the Planning Director’s Findings and
Recommendation which are attached as Exhibit C and are adopted in support of this Resolution, it
is ordered that the sections of Harvey Avenue, Maynard Avenue, Hatton Avenue, Manzana Street,
Attachment B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
Resolution - Page 2 of 2
and Evergreen Drive, which are depicted on the map attached as Exhibit A, and more particularly
described in the attached Exhibit B, are annexed to the City of Eugene.
Section 2. This Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council.
The annexation shall become effective in accordance with State law.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____day of September, 2019.
______________________________________
City Recorder
Attachment B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
EXHIBIT A
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
EXHIBIT B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
EXHIBIT B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
EXHIBIT B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
EXHIBIT B
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
Exhibit C
City of Eugene Hatton Annexation (A 19-4) August 2019 Page 1
Planning Director’s Findings and Recommendation
Annexation Request for Various Right-of-Way
(City File: A 19-4)
Application Submitted: June 25, 2019
Applicant: City of Eugene
Property Included in Annexation Request: Sections of the following street rights-of-way: Harvey Avenue,
Maynard Avenue, Hatton Avenue, Manzana Street, and Evergreen Drive.
Zoning: None (Street Rights-of-Way)
Location: Various Right-of-Way located east of River Road
Representative: Donna Stark, City of Eugene
Surveyor: Tim Fassbender, City of Eugene
Lead City Staff: Dan Halverson, City of Eugene Planning Division, 541-682-5410
EVALULATION:
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the City has determined that this request complies
with Eugene Code (EC) Section 9.7805 Annexation - Applicability. As such, it is subject to review and
approval in accordance with the requirements, application criteria and procedures of EC 9.7800 through
9.7835. The applicable approval criteria are presented below in bold typeface with findings and
conclusions following each.
EC 9.7825(1) The land proposed to be annexed is within the city’s urban growth boundary and is:
(a) Contiguous to the city limits; or
(b) Separated from the city only by a public right of way or a stream, bay, lake or other
body of water.
Complies Findings: The annexation area is within the City’s urban growth boundary (UGB) and is
contiguous to the City limits, consistent with subsection (a).
YES
NO
EC 9.7825(2) The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable policies in the Metro Plan and in
any applicable refinement plans.
Complies Findings: Several policies from the Metro Plan provide support for this annexation by
encouraging efficient use of land and urban service provisions within the UGB, including
the following policies from the Growth Management section (in italic text):
Policy 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.
Policy 8: A full range of key urban facilities and services shall be provided to urban
areas according to demonstrated need and budgetary priorities. (page II-C-4)
Policy 10. Annexation to a city through normal processes shall continue to be the
highest priority. (page II-C-5).
YES
NO
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
Exhibit C
City of Eugene Hatton Annexation (A 19-4) August 2019 Page 2
Policy 15. Ultimately, land within the UGB shall be annexed to a city and provided with
the required minimum level of urban facilities and services. While the time frame for
annexation may vary, annexation should occur as land transitions from urbanizable to
urban. (page II-C-5)
The River Road - Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan (RR/SC UFP) is the adopted refinement
plan for the subject road sections. With regard to applicable policies of the RR/SC UFP, a
portion of the street annexation is within the River Road/Howard subarea; however,
none of these subarea policies are applicable to the request.
As previously discussed in this subsection, and further detailed under subsection (3)
below, the proposed annexation is consistent with Metro Plan growth management
policies. The annexation procedures beginning at EC 9.7800 are consistent with State law
and therefore, as found throughout this report, the annexation is consistent with State
law.
The following policies from the River Road and Santa Clara Goals, Findings, Objectives,
and Policies section are also relevant to the request:
Objective 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.
Objective 3. Deliver a full range of urban services to the River Road and Santa Clara areas
through annexation.
Annexation of these various sections of Right-of-Way will create clear boundaries for
police and other City services, which increases the effectiveness and efficiency of these
services. In the current case, parking regulations on these sections of roads cannot be
enforced by the City. Annexation will also allow for future city road improvements,
parking enforcement, and services that will benefit residents and businesses in the area.
Therefore, based on the findings above, the proposal is consistent with the applicable
policies of the Metro Plan and RR/SC UFP refinement plan.
EC 9.7825(3) The proposed annexation will result in a boundary in which the minimum level of key
urban facilities and services, as defined in the Metro Plan, can be provided in an
orderly, efficient, and timely manner.
Complies
Findings: Consistent with this criterion, the proposed annexation will result in a
boundary in which the minimum level of key urban facilities and services can be
provided in an orderly, efficient, and timely manner as detailed below:
Wastewater
The various rights-of-ways are not subject to wastewater connections, since rights-of-
way do not trigger wastewater services. A public wastewater system is already located
YES
NO
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
Exhibit C
City of Eugene Hatton Annexation (A 19-4) August 2019 Page 3
within the all right-of-way segments proposed for annexation.
Stormwater
Manzana Street, Evergreen Drive and Hatton Avenue rights-of-ways have existing
stormwater lines ranging from 15” to 48” in diameter. Any future street drainage
improvements will be subject to city standards and specifications at the time of
improvement.
Transportation
These sections of Right-of-Way will continue to operate as before, and no impact will
occur from the annexation.
Solid Waste
Collection service is provided by private firms. Regional disposal sites and the Short
Mountain Landfill are operated by Lane County.
Water and Electric
Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) and Water staff confirm that water and electric
services are available to the property.
Public Safety
Police protection will be extended upon annexation consistent with service provision
through the City. Fire protection will be provided by Eugene Springfield Fire. Emergency
medical services are currently provided on a regional basis by the cities of Eugene and
Springfield to central Lane County and will continue in the same manner upon
annexation.
Parks and Recreation
Parks and recreation programs are provided on a City-wide basis. The inclusion of the
subject property in the City is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the minimum level of
this key urban service is met.
Planning and Development Services
Planning and building permit services are provided for all properties located within the
urban growth boundary by the City of Eugene.
Communications
This is not relevant as the road sections will not be developed with residential or
commercial uses.
Public Schools
This is not relevant as the road sections will not be developed with residential or
commercial uses.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
Exhibit C
City of Eugene Hatton Annexation (A 19-4) August 2019 Page 4
CONCLUSION:
Based on the above findings, information submitted to date, and the criteria set forth in EC 9.7825, the
proposed annexation is consistent with the applicable approval criteria. A map and legal description
showing the areas subject to annexation are included in the application file for reference. The effective
date is set in accordance with State law.
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
ATTACHMENT C
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E
From:SHANNON BURSOFSKY
To:HALVERSON Daniel E
Subject:Hatton Annexation
Date:Monday, August 12, 2019 3:46:49 PM
Hello!
My husband & I live on Manzana St. in Eugene in the proposed annexation area. The
on going parking on the street problem never ends. When someone finally stops, two
or three begin again. All of our immediate neighbors have to make a wide berth
around parked cars just to drive either direction on Manzana causing us to enter
opposing cars. It has to be awful for Sanipac/Apex...or any other large vehicle that
has to maneuver around these parked vehicles on a street that is not very wide to
begin with. Our personal complaint, in addition to the above, is that many times these
vehicles will park for great lengths of time directly at the end of our driveway making it
incredibly difficult to pull out of our OWN driveway. Please, please pass this request!
Attachment D
September 9, 2019, Meeting – Item 2E