CCMinutes - 11/24/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor suggested that the council would spend more time discussing whether to hold a hearing than the hearings would take. She agreed that the public hearings served an educational purpose. She believed many people never consulted the City's Web site and there were many people who watched council meetings. Also, not all residents were covered by neighborhood organizations. City Manager Taylor agreed with a statement from Mr. Pap6 that the cost of public hearings was not insignificant. Mayor Torrey encouraged the council to allow the process to work. He said that the council should give the staff and the Oregon State Legislature a chance to do their jobs. Mr. Kelly pointed out that when the council held a hearing, the 300-foot notice requirement was triggered, which could cost the City far more in mailing expenses than the claim itself. He preferred for the council to be able to determine whether a hearing was actually needed. Ms. Bettman asked that the issue be flagged for future discussion because a consistent, standardized process was needed, and that included a dollar threshold. The amendment to the motion failed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes. Mr. Klein reviewed possible changes to Section 2.090(5), dealing with the question of transferability. He said that essentially, the ordinance was written to mirror the language in Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Bettman said that approach placed the City Council back where it started because the language was ambiguous. Mr. Klein concurred. He believed any modification or waiver was not transferable but others, such as the organization Oregonians in Action, disagreed with him. The issue would be decided by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the end. He believed the City was protected by the text in question in either case. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said that the modification was transferable to the extent that Ballot Measure 37 said it was. That issue probably will need to be decided before a property owner can secure financing for a development project based on a Measure 37 waiver. Mr. Meisner, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to adopt the text reviewed by Mr. Klein. Mr. Meisner noted his previous concerns about the section in question He felt the option presented by Mr. Klein was a defensible way to handle the issue, and was unsure he could have supported the ordinance with the text that was previously in the ordinance. Ms. Solomon supported the amendment. She asked if anyone had filed a challenge to the issue of transfer- ability yet, and if a challenge was filed, whether it would be expedited. Mr. Klein said nothing had been filed because the measure had not yet taken effect. He did not think that issue would be before a court until there was a set of facts on which a court could rule. A court case must be formulated with transferability as issue before a court could consider the issue. He added that the legislature could expedite resolution of the issue if it wished. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~ about the City's ability to facilitate transferability, Mr. Klein indicated he believed that was precluded by Ballot Measure 37. Putting the measure aside, the State has preempted the City's ability to grant these waivers or modifications; one could only do so by the standard MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 24, 2004 Page 6 Work Session