Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

would take a first step to ensure that the City’s residential neighborhoods were strengthened and not degraded by the process. Howard Galvin , 2894 Warren Street, represented the HBA of Lane County. He asked the Council to not pass but refer Amendments 5, 7 and 8 be referred to the ICS for more comprehensive review. The amendments were not minor in scope and had large policy implications for the City. Although proposed Amendments 5 and 7 may affect only a small geographic area near the University they would have a broad negative effect in terms of policy on the community. The amendments allegedly reduced density near the University which was an area zoned for high density development and had a need and demand for high density development. He referred to recent Register Guard articles regarding a shortage of student housing. Given the housing situation and the finite amount of land near the University he asked if the City wanted to cut potential densities thereby cutting campus housing. The amendments, particularly the parking requirements, would effectively halt new multi-family development near the University. It was bad long term planning because it reduced housing, raised the cost of existing housing and increased the number of students driving to campus. The amendments needed and deserved more in-depth study. Laura Longdon, 4675 Goodpasture Loop, #82, Director of Government Affairs for HBA of Lane County. The HBA opposed Amendments 5, 7 and 8, because they were not minor in scope and had large policy effects on the community. She provided written testimony to the City Council. The amendments had long term effects and violated State Land Use Law. Proposed Amendments 5 and 7 were contrary to the Metro Plan policies for housing and the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Goal 10 Administrative Rule for housing. Both the Metro Plan policies and DLCD Goal 10 rule were mandatory standards for the proposed amendments to the code. The Metro Plan anticipated the demand for residential land would be met through redevelopment and infill, and required that the zoning districts allow density ranges consistent with the Plan. It called for increased density allowed in the metropolitan area through code amendments. The proposed amendments reduced the height allowed along perimeter of any site zoned R-3 and R-4 without increasing the height allowed in the middle of the sites, which effectively downzoned property and precluded building the number of units the Metro Plan allowed on the sites. The parking requirement further aggravated that impact. By increasing the amount of required parking without increasing allowed height, the City further decreased the potential to develop units. DLCD Goal 10 rules required Metro Plan designations for all residential lands that identified the allowed density. The City of Eugene had an obligation to adopt and apply zoning designations that allowed the maximum planned residential densities. The HBA asked the City Council to refer Amendments 5, 7 and 8 be referred to the ICS for further review. Katrina Wester, 3550 Sterling Woods, Ward 5, thanked the Council for its service and leadership to the community. She owned a small construction company and was past president of the HBA. She said we all lived in the community and needed to work together to plan for the community’s future. The community would continue to grow and the citizens needed to make difficult choices on how and where to accommo- date that growth. GMPs policies addressed growth within the UGB and the University area was zoned for and was the most practical location for high density development. However, proposed Amendments 5 and 7 would effectively downzone the property and needed further consideration. State law required that the City have a 20 year supply of buildable land and the high density zoning was taken into account when the study was performed. The task of deciding where the City would accommodate growth was not a simple one, and Amendments 5 and 7 had complex consequences to their implementation, thus needing more consideration. As the amendments were currently written, the conflicted with the City’s GMPs and the Metro Plan and Oregon land use law. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 10 Work Session