My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 09/21/09 Public Hearing
>
Item 2: Ordinances on Minor Code Amendments (MiCAP Remand)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:21:00 PM
Creation date
9/17/2009 2:22:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
9/21/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1the city erred by failing to assess the impact of EC 9.6790(6) on the city’s inventory of <br />2residential, commercial and industrial lands. Petitioner contends EC 9.6790(6) will render <br />3much of that land unbuildable and leave the city with an inadequate supply of land for <br />4residential, commercial and industrial development. <br />5The city responds that petitioner misreads the legal effect of EC 9.6790(6). As <br />6originally enacted, EC 9.6790 directed the City Manager to adopt a Stormwater Management <br />7Manual that was consistent with the goals set out at EC 9.6790(1) through (5). Ordinance <br />820417 does not change EC 9.6790(1) through (5) in any way. As we have already noted, the <br />9City Manager has adopted a Stormwater Management Manual. All that Ordinance 20417 <br />10does is add some additional goals that the City Manager must consider. The goals set out in <br />11EC 9.6790(6) do not themselves apply to needed housing and because they do not apply to <br />12needed housing they could not be impossible to comply with. Neither do they have any <br />13effect on the city’s inventory of residential, commercial or industrial lands. The City <br />14Manager’s action to implement EC 9.6790(6) may have all of those effects and may run afoul <br />15of OAR 660-008-0015, the needed housing statutes, and the city’s obligation to ensure an <br />16adequate supply of land for residential, commercial and industrial development. However, <br />19 <br />17EC 9.6790(6) itself does not have any of those effects. <br />18The eighth assignment of error is denied. <br />NINTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR <br />19 <br />20 ORS 227.186(4) and (5) impose detailed statutory notice requirements, commonly <br />21known as “Ballot Measure 56 notice,” for city decisions that rezone property. Under its <br />22ninth assignment of error, petitioner argues that both Ordinance 20417 and 20418 “rezoned” <br />19 <br /> The parties suggest that the City Manager may have adopted standards in the Stormwater Management <br />Manual like those that are required by Ordinance 20417 before Ordinance 20417 was adopted. Even if that is <br />the case, that does not change the legal effect of Ordinance 20417. <br />Page 37 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.