Item 8 - Ratif.IGR Comm.Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The committee considered another bill held over from the previous meeting, HB 2356, which modified the procedure for approval of a subdivision or partition plat. Mr. Nystrom referred the committee to a memorandum in the meeting packet entitled HB 2356; Final Plats, which was drafted in response to the committee's questions. He said the bill was developed in response to a decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals, which determined that the current Oregon Revised Statute does not provide a clear distinction between the tentative approval and final plat processes. Eugene was one of the few cities that employed a Type II process for the final plat process. He noted only the second step of the subdivision and plat processes were affected. Even if the bill passed, it did not compel local jurisdictions to make any changes to local ordinances. Ms. Bettman opposed the staff position to monitor the bill as being inconsistent with the City of Eugene's Land Use Code. The process was implemented through the code update, which included considerable public input, and the legislation would circumvent that process completely. She opposed the bill on the basis of home rule. She was not addressing the merits of the change, but thought it important to be consistent. She noted that staff indicated support for the concept of the bill in the memorandum. Ms. Bettman said that while it was true that few final plats received comment, she thought those that did receive comment were significant because they were controversial, and people had a chance to weigh in. Mr. Nystrom recalled that two or three of the 200 to 250 plats had been controversial. Most of the comments the City received expressed confusion about the notice they received because the respondents thought the decision had already been made. Mr. Nystrom said the bill would give the City an option to revisit the issue if it wished to do so. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Nystrom said staff believed the bill would give the City more flexibility. Mr. Nystrom noted that the bill had the support of the American Planning Association. Ms. Bettman believed that Eugene would be under pressure to change its code to be consistent with State law if the bill passed. She also read strong support in the staff comments, and asked why staff proposed a status of Monitor. Mr. Nystrom said staff recommended the bill be monitored in case it was expanded beyond its current scope. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the status of the bill to Oppose. Ms. Taylor agreed there was a danger the City would be told it had to change its ordinances. Mr. Pap~ did not interpret the bill as forcing Eugene to change its rules. He expressed concern that leaving the State statutes as they were would force the City's chosen approach on other jurisdictions. Mr. Heuser suggested other Oregon jurisdictions could welcome the change. Mr. Nystrom said he was unaware of other cities opposing the bill. Mr. Pap~ asked that the bill be held over to the following meeting so that staff could discover the position the League of Oregon Cities had on the bill. Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor concurred. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding HB 2403, requiring the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to conduct a study on photo radar, Mr. Cushman said he would recommend the bill be dropped because it merely called for a study. Ms. Bettman supported such a study if it resulted in some objective data about the viability of photo radar as an enforcement tool. MINUTES--Council Committee on INtergovernmental Relations February 11, 2005 Page 5