My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 01/19/05 WS
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2005
>
CC Minutes - 01/19/05 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/10/2010 10:27:55 AM
Creation date
3/4/2005 10:30:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br /> <br /> Eugene City Council <br /> Work Session <br /> McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall <br /> <br /> January 19, 2005 <br /> Noon <br /> <br />COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Bonny <br /> Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Prior. <br /> <br />COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Papd. <br /> <br />Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. <br /> <br />A. WORK SESSION: Measure 37 Update and Effect on Planning and Development Work Plan <br /> <br />City Manager Dennis Taylor introduced the item, reminding the council that, following the passage of Ballot <br />Measure 37, it adopted an ordinance so the City could process claims made under the measure. He <br />introduced Planning Director Susan Muir and City Attorney Glenn Klein, who were present to discuss other <br />issues related to the measure and its impact on the Planning Division work plan. Planner Neil Bj6rklund <br />was also present to answer questions. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein reported that the City of Eugene had yet to receive a Ballot Measure 37 claim; Lane County had <br />received a handful, and the City of Springfield had been informally notified it faced one or two claims. He <br />said that around the state, slightly more than 100 claims have been filed, most of them with counties. About <br />40 percent of those claims were made by those wishing to build a single-family house on their property. <br />Another 40 percent were those filed by property owners wishing to develop rural subdivisions; the remaining <br />20 percent fell into a number of other categories. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein noted a lawsuit had been filed against the State and State officials as well as against Clackamas, <br />Washington, and Marion counties by several farm bureaus and 1,000 Friends of Oregon, who were seeking <br />to have the ballot measure set aside. A number of issues were raised in the suit, including equal privileges <br />and immunities and the separation of powers. Until the Circuit Court issued a decision and it was acted on <br />by higher courts, the case would not have any impact on the actions taken by Eugene or other cities or <br />counties outside the specific defendants in the case. He did not anticipate a decision by the Court of Appeals <br />for at least two years. <br /> <br />Mr. Klein reported that at the Oregon Legislature, some bills related to the implementation of Ballot <br />Measure 37 had been filed. He did not know which bills would gain support. He said a joint session had <br />been held by the House and Senate land use committees, which heard testimony from a wide variety of <br />parties regarding possible adjustments to the measure. He noted that the representative of Oregonians in <br />Action, a sponsor of the measure, had indicated his belief that no changes were needed. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 1 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.