CC Minutes - 01/19/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Poling asked for more information about the appeals mentioned by Ms. Muir. Ms. Muir said the first appeal was made by property owners objecting to having their property included in the City's Goal 5 inventory and, in that case, the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) upheld the City. The second appeal was filed by an individual property owner objecting to the inclusion of her property on the inventory; in that case, the decision was remanded to Lane County, and the State ordered the property taken off the inventory. Mr. Poling asked the basis for the appeals. Ms. Muir said a number of different issues were involved, but essentially the property owners in question objected to the inclusion of their properties in the inventory. There were no physical commonalities between the properties involved in the appeals. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said municipalities generally have no obligations to provide municipal services to residents living outside city limits. He said that with regard to rural subdivisions, even if a jurisdiction waived a minimum parcel size requirement, for example, that did not mean a rural subdivision would be built. Other regulations would probably have to be waived as well, and that might not occur. For example, in the case of a large subdivision, it was unlikely a developer would be able to get water and sewer services. He had not heard of any large rural subdivisions that would be located outside an urban growth boundary or within the urban transition area locally. Ms. Bettman said she believed the real impact of Ballot Measure 37 would be on the City's inability to regulate property in the future. She thought the council needed to consider what it could do to balance the impact of the measure. If one could make the argument that zoning or land use changes decrease a property's value, the City could argue that the opposite was true, and that such zoning and land use changes increased a property's value. She wanted the City to pursue that concept to determine whether it could capture that increase in value and create a fund to pay for Ballot Measure 37 claims. Ms. Bettman asked staff to discuss what significant Goal 5 resources were in question in the inventory. Mr. Bj6rklund said that the inventory included wetlands, riparian areas, upland wildlife habitat areas. The Delta Ponds system, the Willamette River, and the Amazon headwaters were among notable features in the inventory. Ms. Bettman asked how the City could move forward and develop some proposals to implement her suggestion. City Manager Dennis Taylor suggested that Ms. Bettman poll her fellow councilors for a work session on the topic, noting it would compete with other council work plan demands. He added that the subject was complex and could involve action by the State legislature. Mr. Klein concurred that it would not be simple to accomplish what Ms. Bettman was interested in doing. He said that such an approach had been discussed following the passage of Ballot Measure 7. There were some potential options, but it would not be a short discussion given the legal issues involved and some preemptions that existed in State law. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Ms. Muir said the City did not have an analysis of property purchases that indicated any number of potential claims. She said that in the case of the inventory, all the affected property owners would have potential Ballot Measure 37 claims as the regulations being contem- plated were new. Mr. Kelly again emphasized that the inventory should go forward. He said that ;;knowledge was power," MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 19, 2005 Page 3 Work Session