Laserfiche WebLink
reminded the council that there were staff impacts associated with passage of the second motion <br />as the initial intent of the update was to streamline the regulations to the degree possible. <br /> <br />Planning and Development Department Director Paul Farmer said that staff supported the <br />concept of the City moving toward a green points program but that required a great deal of staff <br />work and community discussion. In terms of the existing solar provisions, those were crafted <br />some time ago in context of the current zoning code. He believed the council would be ill- <br />advised to carry over the elements of the solar provisions as they were currently reflected in the <br />code. Mr. Farmer said that the provisions did not typically have much of an impact on single- <br />level homes but did impact houses of two or more stories. As the community moved toward <br />smaller housing lots, did more in the way of tree protection, and attempted to reduce impervious <br />surfaces, the City did not want to find itself in a situation where more single-story houses were <br />built because of the solar provisions. Mr. Farmer said that staff would try to point out the <br />unintended consequences from the changes suggested by EWEB. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart thanked Mr. Farmer for his statements. He was concerned about both solar access and <br />about the City's conflicting standards and directives. He said that strict enforcement of the solar <br />access standards appeared to work against increased densification, a City goal. Another <br />example of conflict was rear garage access, which increased impervious paved areas. Mr. Farr <br />was confident that as long as the council allowed staff to offer its input, it would be moving in the <br />right direction. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she was not striving to achieve as much density as possible and did not think <br />that was the City's objective. She thought the objective was sufficient densification to support <br />transit and preserve the urban growth boundary through efficient use of land. For that reason, <br />she thought preserving the solar standards was a good idea because it gave people living in the <br />city an opportunity to garden, enjoy sunlight, and have access to solar as an alternative energy <br />source. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman regarding the nature of a list distributed to the <br />council which identified changes to the existing solar provisions that EWEB found acceptable, <br />Mr. Farmer clarified that the list kept all existing provisions in place, with the exception of the <br />changes proposed through the update that EWEB was in agreement with. Ms. Bishow added <br />that EWEB was not advocating for change in general but were willing to support some of the <br />Planning Commission- recommended changes in recognition of the tradeoffs that Mr. Farmer <br />discussed. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he felt good about the current solar standards but he recognized the tradeoffs. <br />He believed EWEB did a good job of submitting testimony but not much of what it wanted was <br />incorporated into the update. He questioned whether there was something that EWEB could <br />recommend related to the tradeoffs Mr. Farmer discussed, acknowledging that in some cases it <br />was unlikely both trees and solar access could be preserved. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that staff was more comfortable with the Planning Commission-recommended <br />solar standards than the current standards or the motion before the council. He said that the <br />commission recommendations represented a balance between competing needs, and <br />appropriate solar access protection for the community. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson asked staff to discuss an example commission recommendation to which EWEB <br />objected. Ms. Bishow responded that the Planning Commission had recommended that <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />