Laserfiche WebLink
subdivisions that achieved at least 70 percent of the maximum allowed density be exempted <br />from the solar lot provisions. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly moved, seconded by Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to <br /> add a future work program item to bring back a solar access green points <br /> program that balances intensification of use with continued solar access as a <br /> natural amenity and sustainable energy source. The motion passed <br /> unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Meisner being out of the room at the time the vote was <br /> taken). <br /> <br /> Mr. Rayor moved, seconded Ms. Bettman, to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the code to maintain the present solar access provisions, with <br /> changes acceptable to EWEB in testimony submitted in May 2000. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Bishow explained that under the current code, if a <br />development could not attain the density the developer proposed, it was exempt from the solar <br />lot standards. She said that staff did not want to be in the position of redesigning subdivisions to <br />demonstrate to developers they could achieve the desired density and comply with the solar lot <br />standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he was trying to find a middle ground between EWEB's position and the <br />commission's position. He suggested that perhaps there could be a compromise establishing a <br />threshold number of solar lots for subdivisions. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 asked if it was possible that tree preservation requirements could hinder a developer's <br />attempt to achieve higher densities. Ms. Bishow said yes. The code already contained <br />provisions to exempt lots that were heavily forested because the shade prevented the use of <br />solar energy. She did not know if there would be conflicts between the tree preservation <br />standards being established for subdivisions and solar standards. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 thought EWEB had done a good job of advocating its point of view. He thought, <br />however, that the Planning Commission had done a good job of sorting through the issues and <br />had considered the entire range of issues involved, not just solar energy. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that if the motion passed, many new subdivisions would retain the solar lot <br />standards and there would be no opportunity for what he termed the density bonus now in the <br />draft. Mr. Farmer concurred with Mr. Kelly's statement. Mr. Kelly said that he had wrestled with <br />the issue at great length. The code was a balancing act and he was concerned that the City <br />would lose opportunities to achieve densities that were supportive of transit if it overlaid the <br />current solar requirements on top of that. Given the amount of work done by the commission <br />and staff, he was prepared to accept the commission's recommendations. He did not think the <br />council had a sense of how the motion on the floor would impact a variety of related issues. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson noted the many conflicting values underlying the issue before the council. If she <br />had to pick between values, she thought that it was most appropriate the council be more <br />concerned with community development as a whole rather than with individual households. She <br />believed solar access largely impacted individual households. While she still thought that was <br />critical because of the cost of energy, she believed the council needed to be more directly <br />concerned with the larger range of issues. Ms. Nathanson would have preferred to defer to <br />EWEB, but did not think it possible in this case. She said the Planning Commission tried to <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 8 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />