Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Ms. Solomon preferred public outreach first followed by strategy development. She felt the public could help clarify some of the issues related to opportunity siting. She strongly opposed to amending the strategy development on the fly, asserting it was bad government to do so. She suggested having a work session to address the issues raised. She said she would not support the proposed amendment. Mr. Papé concurred with Ms. Solomon and expressed concern about discarding design review and design standards previously discussed by the council. In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Bettman said her amendment did not necessarily mean that a good opportunity site could not be considered outside of a MUC. Mr. Belcher asked if Ms. Bettman’s proposed amendment language, “It articulates design standards for infill” meant that progress on Opportunity Siting could not be achieved until infill standards were developed. Ms. Bettman stated a phased implementation could occur. Development of design standards at a demonstration site could be part of the project, while infill standards development could occur concurrently. She added she did not intend to lock identification of an opportunity site and development of infill standards for other locations. Mr. Belcher asked if the proposed amendment language “by maintaining R-1 zones” would restrict Opportunity Siting from R-1 zones. Ms. Bettman speculated there could be some very underdeveloped R- th 1 zones, citing an area of Amazon Park and 29 and Willamette and noting the cost of redevelopment could be very high. She asked if Mr. Belcher was referring to vacant R-1 land. Mr. Belcher responded he was wondering about vacant R-1 land. In response to Mayor Piercy, Mr. Belcher said he had not received an answer to his question. Mayor Piercy indicated she was too uncomfortable with the unknown. She was concerned about restrictions that did not allow the freedom to move forward. She added she would be more comfortable with a straw vote that would give an indication of specific opposition. Mr. Kelly asserted this discussion had been taking place in one form or another for somewhere between twelve years and two years, depending on the definition. At some point, as the decision-makers, the City Council needed to make some decisions. He feared the motion would die a death from both sides of the aisle, which he thought would be unfortunate. He thought Mr. Belcher brought up a critical question that had not previously been raised. Mr. Kelly asked Ms. Bettman if, given the confusion around the last bullet, she would be comfortable with revising the last bullet in her motion to read “It protects established residential areas,” leaving identification of specific conditions for staff and the Planning Commission to resolve and bring back to the City Council. Ms. Bettman replied she would not accept that as a friendly amendment as it would remove protections from existing neighborhoods. She would be willing to revise the language that would not exclude the possibility that R-1 sites existed. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Papé, moved to amend the last bullet to read It protects established residential areas. The motion passed, 5:2, with Ms. Taylor and Ms. Bettman voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman stated she would not support the motion to amend because it was now meaningless and reinforced all of the ways in which density would be increased and neighborhoods destroyed without addressing how the neighborhoods would be protected The motion failed, 4:3; Mr. Kelly, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Poling voting yes. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 5 Work Session