CC Minutes - 10/11/00 Work Session

Home Browse Search

balance solar access with other community values to reach its recommendations. Ms. Nathanson opposed the motion. Mr. Meisner agreed with Mr. Papa's remarks. He said he attended some of the commission's discussions on the topic and thought it had done an extraordinary job in balancing values. He did not believe the present code with the changes suggested by EWEB fit well with the remainder of the draft code. Mr. Meisner asked about the time line for the green points program. Ms. Childs said that staff would provide that information to the council at a future work session. She envisioned a five-year implementation process. Mr. Meisner noted the long time the update had taken to reach this point and said the City had lost four years of opportunity to improve the quality of development that occurred in the community. He thought the solar standards recommended by the commission were an improvement, and he believed the commission worked hard to represent many points of view. He opposed the motion. Ms. Bettman thought that much development would occur before the City established a green points program and feared the City would have difficulty imposing new standards on a development community that was not used to complying with such standards. She said that solar was a natural resource. She thought the commission recommendations took a blanket approach to the issue. Ms. Bettman said while solar access might have to be sacrificed to accommodate other interests, that would only be true in some cases. She suggested that alternatively, staff be directed to develop a trigger point for adherence to solar criteria for Iow- density subdivisions. If a development met a certain set of community objectives related to mixed use and density, the commission's recommendations could be implemented, otherwise the stricter EWEB standards would apply. Mr. Rayor agreed with Ms. Bettman. He said that he had brought the issue forward because he thought that EWEB needed to have the discussion. He supported a threshold trigger for the solar standards. Ms. Taylor said that she had heard a great deal from constituents about the issue. She considered solar access to be a quality of life issue. Ms. Taylor supported the motion. Ms. Nathanson wondered where in the community the commission's recommendations would be of most benefit as opposed to EWEB's recommendations. How much was the City doing by adopting one approach versus the other? Was it losing density versus losing relatively little solar access? Mr. Farmer responded that the commission had discussed density as a way to save energy. Solar access, if houses were designed to take advantage of it, was another way to save energy. The commission was attempting to provide an appropriate level of solar access while achieving transit-supportive density. Ms. Nathanson said that the City could help people save energy costs for transportation or help save energy costs for heating buildings, and sometimes both. Mr. Farmer concurred. He noted that multi-story buildings were typically more energy efficient than single story buildings. Mr. Farmer reported that staff was in the process of beginning the initial staff work on a green points program. He said that staff intended to cooperate with EWEB on the program. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 11, 2000 Page 9 Work Session