Laserfiche WebLink
limits and inside of the urban growth boundary (UGB). He indicated that staff would develop recommen- <br />dations about how the City should process claims should Measure 37 pass, based on the assumption that it <br />would be the council's decision whether to pay a claim or waive regulations and that authority would not <br />be delegated to staff, although that option could be discussed. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein identified the consequences of waiving a regulation as another unclear aspect of Measure 37. <br />He said the measure did not address whether a regulation was entirely eliminated for a piece of property <br />and nothing applied, or whether regulations in effect prior to the waived regulation would then be in place. <br />He stated that if the measure passed staff would return very quickly following the election with recom- <br />mendations for actions prior to the effective date of the measure, which could necessitate some modifica- <br />tions to the mandated time period for public notice. <br /> <br />City Manager' Taylor underscored his intent to hold a work session the day following the election if the <br />measure passed in order to consider recommendations from staff for processing claims in an expedited <br />timeframe. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly thanked Mr. Klein for his presentation. He commented that if Measure 37 passed, Eugene <br />would no longer be a livable community over time. He said that zoning and planning were implemented <br />to provide certainty and predictability to homeowners and business owners about what could happen on <br />their property and surrounding property; Measure 37 eliminated that predictability. He gave the example <br />of a neighborhood where homeowners had owned property for 3 years, 15 years, and 40 years respectively <br />and each had a different basis for a claim. He said that Eugene could face tens of millions of dollars in <br />claims and without the funds to pay claims would be forced to waive regulations. He said waivers could <br />include buffers between uses, height limitations in viewscapes, and limits on residential density. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner remarked that Mr. Kelly had not overstated the risk of Measure 37 and asked if the <br />assessment of claims based on length of ownership was accurate. Mr. Klein replied that an owner could <br />request waiver of a regulation as long as the regulation was adopted after the person or family had owned <br />the land. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner clarified that a waiver was for application to a particular piece of property and not elimina- <br />tion of the regulation entirely. Mr. Klein agreed with that, and said that the waiver could possibly apply <br />only to the specific owner that requested the waiver. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner asked if the City could repeal a regulation to avoid endless claims related to a specific <br />provision. Mr. Klein responded that the City could repeal land use regulations as long as the action was <br />consistent with Statewide planning goals and statutes. <br /> <br /> Ms. Solomon commented that the reason Measure 37 was on the ballot was because governments across <br /> the state had been enacting regulations on property that devalued owners' ability to use their properties as <br /> they wished. She said that she did not think that Measure 37 was unreasonable and owners were entitled <br /> to just compensation. She said she supported Measure 37 and would vote against the resolution. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pap6 agreed with Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly regarding the retroactive aspect of Measure 37 and the <br /> resulting checkerboard of land use regulations through the City. He asked who would have the burden of <br /> proof for devaluation of a property. Mr. Klein replied that if the matter went to court the property owner <br /> would have to provide evidence of the reduction in value and the City would have to challenge that claim. <br /> He said the City could establish procedures that provided for a regulatory waiver or payment of a claim if <br /> the owner complied with specific requirement, s, although an owner could go to court if the City declined <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 29, 2004 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />