CC Minutes - 10/12/05 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ms. Muir observed that the City had two AICP planners on staff and she was one of them. She said the quality of Eugene’s staff was nonetheless high. She did not think AICP membership guaranteed a better project or proposal. Ms. Taylor was concerned because she believed staff rushed applications to approval, and the expertise of an AICP member could be valuable in slowing down the process. Ms. Taylor referred to item 80, which would revise the code to clarify that consent to a public utility easement was only required from those directly adjacent to the easement. She thought those not directly adjacent to the easement could also be affected. Mr. Nystrom said that an individual wishing to vacate a public utility easement must seek consent from anyone with direct access to or could benefit from the easement. The current code language required someone living on the other side of the property adjacent to the property in question to grant consent, even if they have no interest in the easement. The proposed code language gave such property owners notice and the ability to comment, but staff questioned if it made sense to ask them for consent when they were not served by or benefited from the easement. Mr. Poling recognized Ms. Bettman for a motion. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council adopted a motion directing staff to return with a proposal that allowed the City to capture the value from any City action, such as a rezoning, that added value to a property. That money would go to a fund that allowed the City to acquire property or compensate for reductions in value as opposed to waiving regulations in the case of a Ballot Measure 37 claim. She said the council had yet to address the subject, which she considered an overarching issue that affected the entire city, while in the meanwhile it processed such things as the minor code amendments. She thought the City was putting the cart before the horse in many ways. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to postpone council action on code, zoning, and land use changes that would likely result in increased property value, until such time that the council has considered an ordinance that enables the City to recover a portion of the increase in value bestowed on property benefiting from such action. The recaptured value will be dedicated to a fund for the sole purpose of compensating prop- erty owners with a valid Ballot Measure 37 claim in lieu of waiving regulations, and for ac- quisition of high value/priority properties in lieu of waivers due to valid Ballot Measure 37 claims. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Ms. Muir said that the council would consider at least three and possibly four land use issues before it held a work session on the proposed compensation fund. Those included the Parks and Open Space Plan, the Chambers Reconsidered Project, Goal 5, and the minor code amendments. Mr. Pryor was reluctant to postpone the operations of the City while the council considered the compensation fund. He did not think the City would be doing the job its citizens expected it to do. He did not oppose the concept but was opposed to stopping all work on other land use issues. Mr. Kelly had the opposite point of view. He believed the motion was a goad to the City for further action rather than a halt to its work. He recalled that the council gave staff unanimous direction to staff to develop the ordinance in question. He suggested that part of citizens’ expectations included their expectation that the City would be able to do land use planning. He thought that, given the impact of Ballot Measure 37 on the City’s ability to do so, the council should address it first. He pointed out that the motion merely called on the council to consider the ordinance; it might find out that for practical reasons the ordinance could not be adopted. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 9 Work Session