Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

community and mutual solutions were being prepared. He asked that the council delay adoption of the ordinance until it could review that information. Kevin Matthews, 120 West Broadway, Friends of Eugene, called for a provision of public notice within a reasonable time frame when a Ballot Measure 37 claim was made. He suggested the cost be placed on the applicant making a claim if possible. He thought Councilor Bettman's question on possible waivers for up-zoning should be follow-up on. He referred to Section 2.0901 of the proposed ordinance and asked that it be modified to state the council "shall" have a hearing. He referred to Section 2.0904 of the ordinance and asked that the "either/or" language be clarified. He believed a third option was missing. Jim Trunnell, 2238 Silhouette Road, spoke of the losses he had experienced as the owner of buildings containing a bar and restaurant in Eugene because of the City's smoking ban in restaurants and bars. He said his leases with his tenants had been affected adversely. Sales in the bar had been dramatically affected. He said that many bars and restaurants in Eugene had been forced to close because of the council's smoking ban. He had lost the value of his property because of the City's actions and was unable to collect fair rent because the affected businesses could not pay it. Mr. Trunnell believed that property owners would make Ballot Measure 37 claims against the City because of the ban, and asked the council to do the right thing and repeal the local smoking ban so that bar owners in Eugene were on a legal playing field with other communities. Lauri Sega[ 120 West Broadway, representing 1,000 Friends of Oregon, did not think the ordinance's definition of"owner" went far enough. She suggested adding a definition for the term "claimant" as being the present owner who had also owned the property prior to and since adoption of the regulation at issue. A valid claim needed to come from a person who currently owned the property and owned it at the time the regulation was enacted. That did not seem to be reflected in the ordinance. Ms. Segal discussed the definition of"valid claim," suggesting that text be added that stated "A claim submitted by the lower of real property that is subject to a land use regulation adopted or enforced by the City after the property became the property of the current owner, and that restricts the use of private real property..." Referring to the compensation claim submittal procedure, Ms. Segal suggested that it be modified to read that the claimant must be both the present owner and contiguous owner since the enactment of the regulation. Ms. Segal indicated she would submit her comments in writing. David Monk, 3720 Emerald Street, supported the application fee being recommended, and endorsed the claims process being proposed. He agreed with Mr. Matthews that public hearings should be mandatory rather than at the discretion of the City Manager. Mr. Monk also suggested that public notice be extended beyond the current 300-foot mailing area. He expressed concern about the provision regarding a private cause of action, questioning whether it was the most effective approach to compensation for property owners living adjacent to a property on which a claim has been filed. There being no more requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed testimony, reiterating that a second hearing and action was scheduled for November 22. Mayor Torrey called on the council for comments and questions for staff follow-up. Councilor Kelly recalled that he had requested language related to public notice. Mr. Klein indicated text regarding public notice would be prepared prior to the next hearing. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 15, 2004 Page 8 Regular Meeting