Laserfiche WebLink
ballot measure. He also felt the claim should end when the property owner ceased to own the property and <br />that it was up to a new buyer to determine whether or not to buy a lawful non-conforming use. <br /> <br />Terri Harding, 132 East Broadway, Suite 536, planning manager for Satre Associates, supported the <br />ordinance before the council with regards to Ballot Measure 37. She especially approved of the City <br />Council's ability to hold a public hearing on a claim if impacts to the public or adjacent neighbors were <br />likely. She noted her preference to continue using the existing land use regulations which were applied <br />equally to different land uses across the City. However, since the voters had approved the measure, she <br />asserted that public notice procedures should be incorporated into the processing of claims to protect a small <br />portion of Oregon's land use system. She supported Ms. Segal's suggestion to expand noticing <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Rob Handy, 455-½ River Road, asked how the need for compensation could be balanced with the <br />commitment to the interests of all of the citizens and the quality of life of neighborhoods in the City. He <br />wondered if the City should consider banking funds from property owners who benefited from upzoning to <br />help offset Ballot Measure 37 claims or whether a fee structure should be established so that local <br />government does not end up footing the bill. He asked if a claims process could be created that would <br />accomplish the ends in a fair process. He supported Ms. Segal's suggestion that Eugene participate in a <br />statewide registry. He also agreed with her recommendation for increased noticing. He hoped the City <br />could insist on a public review process for the measure that ensured fairness and effectiveness and guarded <br />against the enormous potential for abuse in the compensation process. <br /> <br />Bob Suess, 260 East 38th Avenue, noted he submitted testimony regarding land values. He related that he <br />bought a lot in 1961 for $600 and built a house on the property for $24,000 in 1962. He said the house was <br />now worth $240,000. He noted that due to the lack ofbuildable lots, the cost of land had risen <br />precipitously, causing many to be unable to buy land and build. He thought a solution to land use issues <br />would be to have people simply apply with no fee and have the claim reviewed. He suggested that a serious <br />claim could be brought to a higher level before incurring expense. <br /> <br />Deborah Jeffries, 3800 North Delta Highway, stressed that a majority of the people in the state had voted <br />for the measure, including a majority within the UGB of the City of Eugene. She averred the City was not <br />required to pass the ordinance prior to the State's consideration of enabling legislation. She felt it looked <br />like the City was going against the sentiments of the majority. She disagreed with disallowing a property to <br />be grandfathered in when ownership of a property previously involved in a claim was transferred. She also <br />thought the fee should be a firm number and not open-ended as currently proposed in the ordinance. She <br />commented that the newspaper was now referring to the metro area as the Springfield/Eugene area. <br /> <br />Roxie Cuellar, 2053 Laura Street, Springfield, representing the Home Builders Association, concurred that <br />the fee should be flat and immutable. She noted that Cook County had adopted a flat fee or one percent of <br />the compensation, whichever was greater. She felt there was a lack of consistency with the State statute as <br />both 2.070(2)(b) and (e) in the City ordinance had left out wording from it. She urged the council to include <br />all of the language. Regarding 2.090(4), she stated that the City could propose a change in process but <br />could not make substantive changed from the State statute. She suggested that this subsection allowed the <br />City to go back to the time at which the person acquired the property. She predicted that minor regulations <br />waived in current building that would not be grandfathered in and passed on to the next buyer of a property <br />could, in the most extreme interpretation, cause someone to have to raze a house they had just purchased. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 22, 2004 Page 10 <br /> Regular Meeting <br /> <br /> <br />