CC Minutes - 09/27/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

compatible with the surrounding development. He pointed out that the word “downzoning” had been explicitly dropped in an amendment to the motion. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment that the alternate path had been relegated to a subpart of opportunity siting and infill standards. He said that would completely eliminate commercial, industrial, and mixed-use developments where the alternate path could make a big difference in the types of projects proposed. He asked how the alternate path could be elevated to a more prominent place on the work program. Ms. Muir replied that fewer items had been removed from the list of priorities than hoped for. She said that many items the Planning Division would like to see move higher on the list remained at the bottom when higher priority items were assigned. She said that the alternate path could be moved to the first priority on the list but that would mean that resources would be redirected from other high priority projects such as opportunity siting and the South Ridgeline Habitat Study. Mr. Kelly said he was extremely disappointed as he felt that the alternate path had the greatest potential of all of the tools to help the City grow distinctively and compactly. Mr. Hledik said that many commissioners shared Mr. Kelly’s frustration, but the alternate path was a major paradigm shift that would be a challeng- ing piece of work and there was a consensus to at least move forward with some initiatives such as opportunity siting and infill compatibility as a starting point. He said the full intention was to broaden the applicability of the alternate path once some success in residential development was realized. Ms. Bettman pointed out that Ballot Measure 37 was not addressed at all in the work plan. She said it would be necessary to look at the impact on density within the urban growth boundary if huge subdivisions were built outside of it because of waivers. She said she was hearing different points of view from staff and the commission about whether opportunity siting and infill compatibility standards were inexorably linked or separate tracks. She understood there was a separate track for infill compatibility standards that would have a broader application than just opportunity siting but she could not support the work program if opportunity siting did not include that piece. Mr. Hledik highlighted the commission’s new priorities. He said the commission by consensus was suggesting the addition to the work plan of a scope of work for a buildable lands analysis that would include residential lands. He emphasized the addition was only for a scope of work, not the analysis itself. He said the commission felt it was important to have current data upon which to evaluate the broader land use issues that came before it. Mr. Lawless stated that the commission was also recommending the addition of a scope of work for an issues assessment related to neighborhood plans. He referred to earlier remarks by Mr. Papé about the status and value of refinement plans. He said another issue was inconsistency when attempting to interpret and apply the original intent of a plan decades after it had been written. He said the idea there was community support for the idea of developing a strategy for the next generation of refinement plans. Ms. Colbath remarked that the council had added a City-initiated Jefferson-Westside neighborhood Metro Plan amendment as a high priority item on September 11, 2006. She said the commission was requesting clarification of the council’s expectations with respect to the other priorities. She hoped that the council, in the next part of its discussion, would talk about any changes it might wish to make to the work plan or prioritization of tasks. MINUTES—City Council September 27, 2006 Page 5 Work Session