Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to 1) prepare an ordinance and supporting findings to impose a moratorium under Oregon Revised Statute 197.520(3) for properties identified as "Sites E37" on the Goal 5 maps; 2) set a public hearing on the ordinance as soon as possible but not less than 45 days from the date that notice is provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); and 3) provide notice of the proposed moratorium to the DLCD as soon as possible. Responding to a request for input from Ms. Solomon, City Attorney Glenn Klein explained that if the council adopted the motion, the earliest the public hearing proposed in the motion could be held was at the council's November 14 meeting. At that time, the council was scheduled to take action on the Goal 5 ordinance. Under State law, anyone who submitted an application before a moratorium took effect was grandfathered in under the application criteria in place at the time the application was submitted and would be governed by those criteria. For example, if an application was submitted to the council at 5 p.m. on November 14 and the council subsequently passed a moratorium changing the application criteria, the changed criteria would not affect the filed application. There was nothing under State law the City could do to affect anyone who wished to file an application between now and when the moratorium took effect. In regard to the cost of implementing the motion, Mr. Klein said staff estimated a cost of between $5,000 and $10,000 to draft an ordinance and prepare the associated findings. Mr. Klein noted that the motion would affect approximately 230 tax lots contained in the E37 sites. Natural Resources Planner Neil Bjorklund said that Sites E37 included areas that were not recommended for protection by the Planning Commission as well as areas recommended for protection. Ms. Solomon asked if the motion would affect the relationship the City already established with the property owners. Mr. Bjorklund said that the moratorium was not expected by them, based on the trajectory of the Goal 5 process to this point. He said the site was owned by two individuals who had been participating in the Goal 5 process. Ms. Solomon was concerned by the motion because the property owners had been working with the City under a certain set of standards and she did not think it showed good faith to "move the goal posts." She did not believe a moratorium was necessary to achieve what Ms. Taylor and her neighbors in the south hills wanted in regard to the property, and therefore noted her opposition to the motion. Mr. Pape asked if the City had to provide notice to the owners of all the lots on the site. Mr. Klein did not think State law required individualized notices. Mr. Pape asked about the potential of Ballot Measure 37 claims from the adoption of the motion. Mr. Klein acknowledged that some would argue such a moratorium would give rise to a Ballot Measure 37 claim. However, he did not believe that Ballot Measure 37 was implicated in the situation. Mr. Pape indicated he was not supportive of the motion, but ifit passed he hoped all affected property owners would be notified. Ms. Bettman asked what Ms. Taylor was hoping to accomplish through the motion. Ms. Taylor said she was attempting to forestall undesirable development on the property. Ms. Bettman indicated that when she first heard of Ms. Taylor's intent to make the motion, she thought it was more targeted on natural resources under the imminent threat of development. She asked how many acres on the site were recommended for protection. Mr. Bjorklund recalled that between 30 and 40 acres on the site were not recommended for any level of protection at all. MINUTES-Eugene City Council Work Session September 26, 2005 Page 4