Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
regulation was in place prior to the measure's adoption and it did not authorize a claim for a <br />property owner who "came to the regulation." <br /> <br />Mr. Klein advised the council to postpone the January 22 scheduled adoption of the code. He <br />said that if the code was adopted at that point, all those property owners without claims today <br />would have claims. He also counseled waiting because a court decision was expected in <br />February 2001. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr believed that the community was moving in the right direction in terms of housing <br />affordability. He was pointed out that the drop in ranking could partially be attributed to increased <br />wages in the community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Rayor, moved to adopt Option 1. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson offered a friendly amendment to the motion to direct the City Manager to reduce <br />the amount of staff resources through items 3(A)-(C). Mr. Farr and Mr. Rayor accepted the <br />friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he could support Option 1 with an intended adoption date, suggesting February 26, <br />2001. Mr. Farr and Mr. Rayor accepted Mr. Kelly's suggestion as a friendly amendment. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said he supported the motion as offered but not as amended because he had a number <br />of questions about 3(A)-(C). <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner supported the motion as amended. He suggested as a friendly amendment that the <br />City Manager be directed to prepare staff reductions for items 3(A)-(C). Mr. Farr and Mr. Rayor <br />indicated acceptance of Mr. Meisner's suggested amendment. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman did not support 3(A) and 3(B). She opposed 3(B) particularly as she did not support <br />adjustment review, and 3(A) eliminated neighborhood notice, which she found troublesome. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Klein said if the court upheld Ballot Measure 7, <br />it was likely to interpret its meaning, which would give local government some guidance in <br />evaluating the risk of adopting LUCU. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asked if the council supported her suggestion related to linking zone changes to the <br />standards. She said that zone changes were happening all the time and the City was allowing <br />that to occur while stopping progress on the code update. She was concerned about that and <br />thought the City should address it by perhaps eliminating the FTEs doing zone changes and <br />transferring them to another service. <br /> <br /> The motion passed, 5:2; Ms. Bettman and Mr. Kelly voting no. <br /> <br />The meeting adjourned at 7:29 p.m. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />Jim Johnson <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 13, 2000 Page 9 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />