City Council Agenda Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT D HANSEN Alissa H From:HAMMOND Laura A Sent:Monday, November 14, 2016 12:57 PM To:HOSTICK Robin A; HANSEN Alissa H Subject:FW: Request to leave record open on Measure 49 claim From:PaulConte\[mailto:paul.t.conte@gmail.com\] Sent:Monday,November14,201610:03AM To:*EugeneMayor,CityCouncil,andCityManager<mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> Cc:EmilySemple<emily@emilysemple.org>;EugeneNLC<eugenenlc@googlegroups.com> Subject:RequesttoleaverecordopenonMeasure49claim November 14, 2016 Dear Mayor and City Councilors, Just today I (and many other neighborhood leaders) learned of the Measure 49 claim on your agenda for "Public Hearing and possible action." I'm requesting that you not take action tonight and leave the record open for at least one week so that neighborhood organizations can become fully informed and provide testimony. Note that the City has until January 17, 2017 to take action on this claim. I have briefly reviewed the claim application, and I believe there are substantial deficiencies in the claim and the staff assessment. In particular, the two appraisals do not appear to be valid for this particular claim, as I will explain after an opportunity to get additional professional advice. For the record, I am objecting to the "hypothetical" 2012 appraisal as being too high, the 2016 appraisal as being too low, and the differential not appropriately reflecting causes other than the cited code restriction. I am also objecting because the analysis did not do a net cost assessment of the alternative of bring the existing structure into code conformance and/or seeking adjustments and/or variances. Note that the claim asserts a "loss of $60,000" based soley on the difference between a "hypothetical" appraisal and a "at present" appraisal. However, it appears that bringing the existing dwelling into code compliance would cost far less than $60,000. The two appraisals should have accounted for this option. As I hope you are all aware, although this claim is for a specific property and a development standard that applies only to the three university neighborhoods, the legal argument inherent in the claim would essential negate all residential standards adopted after 2011 and into the future. 1