CC Minutes - 05/14/01 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

his argument was included in his written testimony. Mr. Kloos said that barrier could be overcome if the record on the pending appeal had not yet been submitted to LUBA. That was the current situation. The State statutes afford the City, in that case, the right to withdraw the initial ordinance and adopt a new ordinance. Mr. Kloos said that the council had a memorandum from the City Attorney's Office advising it not to take action, and the homebuilders association supported that advice. Kevin Matthews, PO Box 1588, Eugene, 97440, encouraged the council to adopt the Land Use Code Update. He said that the code could be fixed later if needed. He called for further changes to the code. Citing Section 9.9630(1)(a)(2), Mr. Matthews said the section mentioned exceptions to the section that were consistent with the purposes of the section, but the purposes of the section do not appear in the code. He said if the refinement plans must be in the code to be effective, he was concerned that the purposes of the Ridgeline Park section of the South Hills Study needed to be in the code for it to have meaning. Mr. Matthews referred to Section 9.8325, tentative planned unit development criteria for needed housing, and said that (13) incorporates a "morphed" version of text from the South Hills Study about specific planned unit development criteria for steep elevations; they were reworded to make them objective criteria. Referring to Section 9.8320, General Criteria, Mr. Matthews said the general versions of those do not appear. He thought that might be an oversight. Al Johnson, PO Box 71818, joined in the comments of Mr. Kloos and submitted written testimony. He spoke on behalf of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, a party to the appeal previously mentioned by Mr. Kloos, and urged the council not to move up the effective date of the Land Use Code Update. The council's previous decision to tie implementation to the fate of Ballot Measure 7 was a sound one and he encouraged the council to maintain it. It would reduce the City's financial exposure to Ballot Measure 7 claims. Mr. Johnson said that until the pending appeals related to Ballot Measure 7 were completed, there was no reason to implement the code. He noted warnings about the cost of Ballot Measure 7 that were posted on the League of Oregon Cities Measure 7 Web site. He also referred the council to a memorandum entitled Ballot Measure 7; Status and Prognosis, written in November 2000 by a former City Attorney for the City of Lake Oswego. Mr. Johnson said that another reason to delay the effective date was to use the time to show that the code would stay in effect when it was adopted. He cited the Whiteaker Plan as an example of his concerns. Mr. Johnson said the Chamber of Commerce had asked LUBA to review the code to ensure it was consistent with State goals. The chamber and others were concerned the code update created new limitations on development that had not been sufficiently studied to ensure that land allocated for different purposes would be available for development, as required by Land Conservation and Development Commission. He requested a copy of the council's final decision on behalf of the chamber. There being no other requests to speak, Mayor Torrey closed the public hearing. Councilor Rayor asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to respond to the testimony. Mr. Klein said that was he was familiar with the materials cited by Mr. Johnson in testimony, and nothing Mr. Johnson said related to Ballot Measure 7 changed his advice to the council. He said there may be risk, but no one knew what the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court would do if they heard the appeal of Ballot Measure 7. He did not know if the State legislature would act on the measure during the current session. MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 14, 2001 Page 8 Regular Meeting