My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 7: Action: Ordinance on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2009
>
CC Agenda - 12/14/09 - City Council Meeting and Meeting of the Eugene Urban Renewal Agency
>
Item 7: Action: Ordinance on Infill Compatibility Standards Code Amendments
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:55:10 PM
Creation date
12/11/2009 10:55:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
12/14/2009
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
439
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
Mayor and City Council <br />November 10, 2008 <br />Page 3 <br />If the three ordinances under consideration had been developed in a hurry, there might be a basis <br />for delaying their effective date. But in the case of the S-JW standards, these have been worked <br />onby members of the community for more than five years. And all three ordinances have gone <br />through a two-year public process comprising many steps and revisions and involving many <br />people from both neighborhoods and the development community. The university area height <br />and parking requirements have also been tested under fire by the HBA’s LUBA appeal of similar <br />MiCAP amendments, and we know for certain that LUBA has rejected the substantive <br />arguments claiming the amendments areinconsistent with State planning goals and local land <br />use policies. <br />Conclusion <br />With all due respect, the ACA’s position focuses only on the unlikely event that a party will <br />mount an expensive LUBA appeal to attempt to overturn one or more of these amendments and <br />that such an appeal will prevail. Even in that eventuality, the City can make a reasonable <br />response be remedying any errors and readopting the amendments or by taking no action. <br />On the other hand, the ACA has not explained why the Council should follow a strategy that <br />assumesthere’s a significant risk of having one or more ordinances appealed and overturned and <br />at the same timesignificantlyincreases the risk of spurious appeals filed merely to delay one or <br />more ordinances. The ACA’s recommended strategy has only minor potential benefit in reducing <br />anunlikely risk of minor consequence, while creating a very high and consequential risk where <br />no risk at all would exist if Council just follows the approach specified in the City Charter and <br />followed by other Portland cities. <br />I respectfully urge the City Council to direct the City Manager to bring all three ordinances to <br />your December 14 deliberationwithout the “acknowledgement clause. If a Council majority feels <br />that any of the ordinances require the “acknowledgement clause, it would be a simple procedural <br />matter to amend the ordinance(s) at that time. <br />Thank you again for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. <br />Respectfully, <br />Paul Conte <br />1461 W. 10th Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97402 <br />344-2552 <br />pconte@picante-soft.com <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.