Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council's ability to hold a public hearing on a claim if impacts to the public or adjacent neighbors were likely. She noted her preference to continue using the existing land use regulations which were applied equally to different land uses across the City. However, since the voters had approved the measure, she asserted that public notice procedures should be incorporated into the processing of claims to protect a small portion of Oregon's land use system. She supported Ms. Segal's suggestion to expand noticing requirements. Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, asked how the need for compensation could be balanced with the commitment to the interests of all of the citizens and the quality of life of neighborhoods in the City. He wondered if the City should consider banking funds from property owners who benefited from upzoning to help offset Ballot Measure 37 claims or whether a fee structure should be established so that local government does not end up footing the bill. He asked if a claims process could be created that would accomplish the ends in a fair process. He supported Ms. Segal's suggestion that Eugene participate in a statewide registry. He also agreed with her recommendation for increased noticing. He hoped the City could insist on a public review process for the measure that ensured fairness and effectiveness and guarded against the enormous potential for abuse in the compensation process. Bob Suess, 260 East 38th Avenue, noted he submitted testimony regarding land values. He related that he bought a lot in 1961 for $600 and built a house on the property for $24,000 in 1962. He said the house was now worth $240,000. He noted that due to the lack of buildable lots, the cost of land had risen precipitously, causing many to be unable to buy land and build. He thought a solution to land use issues would be to have people simply apply with no fee and have the claim reviewed. He suggested that a serious claim could be brought to a higher level before incurring expense. Deborah Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, stressed that a majority of the people in the state had voted for the measure, including a majority within the UGB of the City of Eugene. She averred the City was not required to pass the ordinance prior to the State's consideration of enabling legislation. She felt it looked like the City was going against the sentiments of the majority. She disagreed with disallowing a property to be grandfathered in when ownership of a property previously involved in a claim was transferred. She also thought the fee should be a finn number and not open-ended as currently proposed in the ordinance. She commented that the newspaper was now referring to the metro area as the Springfield/Eugene area. Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association, concurred that the fee should be flat and immutable. She noted that Cook County had adopted a flat fee or one percent of the compensation, whichever was greater. She felt there was a lack of consistency with the State statute as both 2.070(2)(b) and (e) in the City ordinance had left out wording from it. She urged the council to include all of the language. Regarding 2.090(4), she stated that the City could propose a change in process but could not make substantive changed from the State statute. She suggested that this subsection allowed the City to go back to the time at which the person acquired the property. She predicted that minor regulations waived in current building that would not be grandfathered in and passed on to the next buyer of a property could, in the most extreme interpretation, cause someone to have to raze a house they had just purchased. She thought subsection 2.095 should specify that the prevailing party should be held responsible for attorney's fees. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, felt the ordinance intended to put a necessary process into place. He thought it was the duty of the City Council to respond to the ballot measure. He concurred with Ms. Segal regarding the noticing. He suggested language about the public hearings be made stronger and more clear. He thought, should the issue ofupzoning be under further consideration, the council should MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 10 Regular Meeting