Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tion utility fees, or access regulations. He did not know for sure. The ordinance in question must be related to transportation. He said the term was not used in the State's definitions of land use regulations. Ms. Bettman referred to Section 2.085(b) and asked why the City Manager would recommend the City investigate further given the limited time, as opposed to the City Manager doing further investigation before making a recommendation to the council. Mr. Klein said that the provision was included as a "catch all" to address potentially very unusual claims and very expensive investigations. He said the provision may not be needed. He added he anticipated that after a couple of months' experience in implementing the measure, staff would suggest revisions to the ordinance. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the inclusion of Section 2.085(d), which suggested the potential that a property could be acquired by condemnation. She said if the City was to pay for a claim it might as well leverage that claim for community benefit. She asked how the property in question would be valued, and what provisions of the law would apply to the property, the current provisions or default provisions. Mr. Klein said staff needed to discuss that issue with appraisers, because in a condemnation case, ultimately an appraiser would determine the highest and best use, and how that played out in a Ballot Measure 37 environment was not known. Ms. Bettman expressed interest in having a standardized mechanism to look at all such cases. Mr. Kelly said it was his belief that the passage of Ballot Measure 37 would have a negative impact on Eugene's livability and on farm and forest land across the state. However, it was the law of the land. Mr. Kelly said the ordinance appeared to allow Eugene to implement the measure in a straightforward manner that was fair to the property owner and flexible for the City. He also complimented Mr. Klein for his creative and speedy effort. Mr. Kelly appreciated the provisions of the ordinance related to cost recovery given the difficulty of projecting the cost of processing a claim, as some may be more complex than others. He preferred not to set an arbitrary fee. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. Klein to comment on Section 2.090(1), which indicated the council may choose to have a hearing. He suggested the council needed a process to decide whether to have a hearing, and that should be based on the facts of the case. Even if there was no hearing, he wanted a mechanism for notice to be included in the ordinance. He suggested that a mechanism similar to that used for the removal of trees be considered. Mr. Pap6 joined in the council's compliments to legal counsel. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap6 regarding Section 2.075(1), Mr. Klein suggested that it was unlikely a short-term tenant would submit any claims because by the time their claim was processed they would no longer be a tenant. He said that Ballot Measure 37 stated that one must have ownership or an ownership interest in a property at the time a claim was filed. Mr. Pap6 noted Section 2.090, which stated that waivers were personal to the claimant, and asked about property transfers inside a family. Mr. Klein said as the measure was written, there was no symmetry between the family ownership issue and waiver issue. The ownership issue comes up in the context of whether the owner has a claim and what regulations were in question. In terms of the waiver, the measure indicates that a regulation could be waived to allow the current property owner to use the property in a way that was allowed at the time the individual in question acquired the property, not the family member. MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 8, 2004 Page 7 Work Session