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

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon and Ms. Taylor accepted a friendly amendment from Mr. Kelly to add the following text: “and to later bring back language that would broaden the process to all new land use regulations.” The motion then read: Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to develop a variance-type process consistent with the City Manager’s recommendation, and to incorpo- rate that process in the Goal 5 protection ordinance, and to later bring back language that would broaden the process to all new land use regulations. Mr. Kelly pointed out the council action merely directed staff to return with a process. At that time, he would be able to decide if he supported the process. Ms. Bettman did not support the motion because there was already a claims process in place. She was not convinced there was a reason for the variance or any benefit from it. The proposal “pivoted on a huge assumption” that the council would not lose its ability to consider such issues, and she maintained that the council “had been burned” in the past from its reliance on such assumptions. Ms. Bettman interpreted the variance process as placing more bureaucracy between the council and such decisions. She further objected that the council would have only two weeks to get the information it needed to properly evaluate a variance application. Ms. Bettman suggested the council would benefit by waiting for resolution of the issues surrounding Ballot Measure 37. She believed that the provision that one councilor or the mayor would be able to request the review of an application was significant, and pivotal to the decision before the council. She was afraid to rely on it as any ordinance in which it was included could be changed, although she acknowledged there would be a requirement for a public hearing for such a change to occur. Mr. Pryor asked if the adoption of the ordinance would result in less council involvement in such claims than currently existed. Mr. Klein said adoption of the ordinance would provide an opportunity for the same level of involvement by the council as currently existed, if a councilor decided to request council consideration of a Ballot Measure 37 claim. If the variance process was not adopted, the council would still be involved in claims approved by the manager. Mr. Klein believed the variance process gave the City more ability to require property owners to demonstrate actual reductions in value as a result of a restriction on use. Under the existing claims process, the City can request such evidence, but there was question as to whether it could require it. Under the proposed ordinance, he believed it could require that evidence to be produced. Mr. Pryor indicated that with that explanation, he would support the motion. Ms. Taylor perceived the proposal as placing the Planning Commission between the public and the council. She continued to object to the commission’s involvement in the process. She did not think that 14 days was sufficient time for the council to review an application. Mr. Klein responded that there was nothing magical about the 14 day time line or the Planning Commission. If the council preferred another time line, it could be accommodated in the ordinance. Ms. Muir said that one reason to involve the Planning Commission was agenda management if many such claims were received. Ms. Taylor averred that time after time, the council was told the Planning Commission had an over-full agenda. Ms. Solomon continued to have questions as well as reservations about the proposal, but agreed with Mr. Kelly that the council was merely directing staff to return with an ordinance. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 10, 2005 Page 7 Work Session