Laserfiche WebLink
<br />is more likely to cause problems through Measure 3 7 claims then it is to prevent inappropriate <br />in-fill. . <br /> <br />. Measure 37 <br /> <br />While we are on the' subject of Measure 37, it is illteresting to note that it.should be extremely <br />difficult to .prove that design standards reduced the. value of a piece .of property opening the. way <br />for a Measure 37 claim. Tbis is because. a 'properly developed set of design standards do not <br />reduc~the ability ofa property own to develop his property but rather affect the form of that <br />development. This only applies to design standards, attempts to control in-fill through <br />development standards are likely to run a foul of Measure 37. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />In Conclusion <br /> <br />There are enough Land. Use proposals on the public's plate at this time to '\Taste your and the <br />public's time on a proposal that will expire before. it is effective and \\lhichonly serves to open <br />the city to more costly Measure 37 claims. As the proposed Metro -Plan amendment, Jeffe.rson... <br />West Refinement Plan amendment do not for, tIle reasons discussedabove~ meet their respective <br />adoption criteria as establish.ed in EC 9.7730(3) and Ee9 .8424 respectivel)' and the amendments <br />and code change are contrary to all of the applicable Gro\vth Management Policies, 1 .most <br />strongly urge the Eugene Planning Commission not to recommend. adoption but rather <br />recommend that the City Council drop the matter and directCit)T Staff to develop a setaof <br />design standards to mitigate. the impacts of in-fill. <br /> <br />Thank you for 'your time and careful consideration of this matter. <br /> <br /> <br />Hinkley <br />TestinIony on JY1/\ 06-5,Ra 06M03 and CA~. 06-1 <br />5 Decetnber 2006 <br />Page- 12 of 12 pages <br />