The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-14-16 Council Agenda Packet EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA November 14, 2016 5:30p.m.JOINTMEETINGOFEUGENECITYCOUNCILAND LANECOUNTYBOARDOFCOMMISSIONERS HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 7:30p.m.MEETINGOFTHEEUGENECITYCOUNCIL HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofNovember14,2016; HerHonorMayorKittyPiercyPresiding Councilors 5:30p.m.JOINTMEETINGOFEUGENECITYCOUNCILAND LANECOUNTYBOARDOFCOMMISSIONERS Avenue HarrisHall,125East8 th 1.WORKSESSION ReportfromJointTaskForceonCoordinatedDowntownDevelopment J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\A161114S.doc 7:30p.m.MEETINGOFTHEEUGENECITYCOUNCIL HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th 1.PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCETOTHEFLAG - ¸®±Ȁ WerecitethePledgeofAllegiancetotheFlagthiseveninginhonorof VeteransDayonNovember11. Iinviteyoualltostandandjoinus: ȏ)pledgeallegiancetotheFlagoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,andtotheRepublic forwhichitstands,oneNationunderGod,indivisible,withlibertyandjusticefor ««ȁȐ 2.PUBLICFORUM - ¸®±Ȁ ThePublicForumisanopportunityforindividualstospeaktotheCity Councilonanycityrelatedissuesexceptforthoseitemswhichhavealreadybeen heardbyaHearingsOfficialorareon³®¨¦§³Ȍ²agendaasapublichearing. Eachpersonwillhavethreeminutestospeak.Whenyoucometothepodium, pleasegiveyourname,cityofresidence,and,forEugeneresidents,yourwardif known.Thetimerandlightsindicatethetimeyouhavetospeak.Theredlight indicatestheendofthreeminutes. - ¸®±¢«®²¤²0´¡«¨¢&®±´¬ £ ²ª²¥®±¢®¬¬¤³²¥±®¬³§¤#¨³¸#®´¢¨«ȁ 3.CONSENTCALENDAR (Note:Timepermitting,actionontheConsentCalendarmaybetakenatthe5:30 p.m.worksession.) A.ApprovalofCityCouncilMinutes B.ApprovalofTentativeWorkingAgenda #¨³¸#®´¢¨«0±¤²¨£¤³Ȁ ImovetoapprovetheitemsontheConsentCalendar. # ««¥®±µ®³¤ȁ 4.PUBLICHEARINGandPOSSIBLEACTION: AResolutionGrantingaMeasure49ClaimandWaivingaProvisionof Chapter9oftheEugeneCode,1971forPropertyLocatedat1777E.30th Avenue,Eugene,OregonȨ!²²¤²²®±Ȍ²Map18030811,TaxLot602) - ¦¤±Ȁ Introducestopic,presentsbackgroundinformation. J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\A161114S.doc - ¸®±®¯¤²³§¤¯´¡«¨¢§¤ ±¨¦Ȁ ThosewishingtospeakduringthePublic Hearingmustsubmitacompletedȏ2¤°´¤²³to3¯¤ ªȐformtotheinformationdesk, priortothebeginningofthePublicHearing.Whenyoucometothepodium,please giveyourname,cityofresidence,and,forEugeneresidents,yourwardifknown; youwillhavethreeminutestocomment.Therearelightsonthetimer;thered lightindicatestheendofthreeminutes. - ¸®±Ȁ Closesthepublichearing. - ¸®±Ȁ AsksforquestionsorcommentsfromtheCityCouncil. - ¸®±Ȁ Doesanycouncilorobjecttotakingactiontonight? Ifyes:Scheduleactionforafuturemeeting. Ifno: #¨³¸#®´¢¨«0±¤²¨£¤³Ȁ ImovetoadoptResolution5173grantingaMeasure49 claimandwaivingaprovisionofChapter9oftheEugeneCode,1971forproperty locatedat1777E.30thAvenue,Eugene,Oregon. # ««¥®±µ®³¤ȁ 5.ACTION AnOrdinanceConcerningAnnualMaintenanceoftheLandUseCodeand AmendingSections9.0500,9.2160,9.2451,9.2461,9.2600,9.2620,9.2750, 9.2777,9.3165,9.3210,9.3215,9.3970,9.4130,9.6210,9.6640,9.7000, 9.7015,9.7230,9.7405,9.7505,9.7810,9.8005,9.8085,9.8090,9.8215, 9.8220,9.8320,9.8325,9.8360,9.8423,9.8430,9.8440,9.8445,9.8515, 9.8520,9.8705,9.8710,9.8750,9.8755,9.8760,9.8810and9.8855ofthe EugeneCode,1971 CouncilBill5159,andordinance #¨³¸#®´¢¨«0±¤²¨£¤³Ȁ Imovetoadopt concerningannualmaintenanceofLandUseCode. # ««¥®±µ®³¤ȁ 6.WORKSESSION HumanRightsCommissionFY2017WorkPlanandFY2016AnnualReport #¨³¸#®´¢¨«0±¤²¨£¤³Ȁ ImovetoapprovetheHumanRightsCommission FY2017workplan. # ««¥®±µ®³¤ȁ 7.ACTION InitiationofRenamingandRezoningProcessforBroadwayPlaza Adjourn. J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\A161114S.doc ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\A161114S.doc AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY City of Eugene and Lane County Joint Work Session ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S161114A-JEO.docx RECOMMENDATION FORMOREINFORMATION ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND "IpledgeallegiancetotheFlagoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,andtothe Republicforwhichitstands,oneNationunderGod,indivisible,withlibertyandjusticeforall." CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611141.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT SUGGESTEDMOTION FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611142.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611143A.doc ATTACHMENTA MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 October17,2016 5:30p.m. CouncilorsPresent:MikeClarkviaphone,Claire Syrettviaphone CouncilorsAbsent: WORK SESSION: Sustainability Commission Work Plan and Annual Report 1. Sustainability Commission Chair Howard Saxion and Division Manager Mia Cariaga discussed the Sustainability Commission’s FY16 annual report and FY17 work plan. Council discussion: The hard work and commitment of the commission is greatly appreciated. Suggest having someone come talk to the commission about economic development. Council and public needs an up-to-date list of commission members and their wards. Vacancies on the commission are an issue; filling them should be a priority. Dashboard on climate progress and updates to the community is a great idea. The work plan process for streamlining efforts could be a model for other commissions. Council needs to ask for more advice and input from commission on decisions Element of social equity is missing; needs to be included in commission’s work. Commission’s input on the Beltline expansion/scenario plans is needed. MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Evans, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to approve the Sustainability Commission FY17 work plan with the addition of explicit research and PASSED 7:0. actions related to social equity resubmitted to the council. 2. WORK SESSION: Downtown Placemaking Initiative Senior PlannerNan Laurence and Urban Design Planner Will Dowdy gave a PowerPoint presentation discussing direction from City Council, activities, what was learned, and key next steps. Council discussion: Need to take this focus on places and people into discussions with the County. Meaningful conversation about the future of the heart of downtown is needed. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 17, 2016 Page 1 Work Session Conversation about heart of downtown and the location of the seat of government is intertwined. Concerned that Park Blocks are not a usable space in their current configuration. 3. STAFF UPDATE: Capitol Funding Application for Cultural Advocacy Coalition LRCS Executive Director Rene Grube shared that the information was too aggressive to respond to; therefore, the grant application was pulled for the time being, but anticipated coming back to council in the next year with the project. 4. COUNCIL UPDATE Greg Evans was elected to League of Oregon Cities board. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 17, 2016 Page 2 Work Session ATTACHMENTB MINUTES JointMeetingofEugeneCityCounciland LaneCountyBoardofCommissioners HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 October19,2016 12:00p.m. CouncilorsPresent: #« ¨±¤3¸±¤³³µ¨ ¯§®¤ CouncilorsAbsent: WORK SESSION: Report/Update on Joint Task Force on Coordinated Downtown Development 1. Council discussion: Support expressed for Option C1. Important to identify where parking would go in these scenarios, to address both public and employee needs. Cost is major factor in any decision about scenarios; important to provide that information up front. Important for city offices to be connected (e.g. sky bridge); benefit for public. Further discussion needed on whether trade would include the old courthouse. Idea of locating city offices in the PSB should be explored further Location of Farmers Market is a priority consideration in this discussion. Cost on refurbishing the courthouse needs to be explored. Suggest looking at values on a priority scale and assigning them to each scenario. 2. Public Comment th 1. Angela Norman – Supported keeping Farmers Market at 8 and Oak location. th 2. Linda Perrine – Supported keeping Farmers Market at 8 and Oak location. 3. Lonnie McCulloch – Opposed to use of Butterfly Lot; government will lose credibility. 4. Jan Smith – Supported more funding for homeless efforts, not City Hall. th 5. Mike McFadden – Supported keeping Farmers Market at 8 and Oak location. 6. Bob Cassidy – Supported using the entire block for the County development. 7. Lee Sutton – Supported looking into future needs as these issues are addressed. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 19, 2016 Page 1 Work Session ATTACHMENTC MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 October24,2016 5:30p.m. CouncilorsPresent: ,ClaireSyrettviaphone WORK SESSION: Envision Eugene Multi-Family Housing Strategies 1. Principal Planner Terri Harding and Planning Director Robin Hostick gave a PowerPoint presentation discussing the Envision Eugene timeline, review of summer engagement results, and council direction on housing strategies. Council discussion: Refinement plans are needed before MUPTE can expand beyond downtown. If data submitted by Helickson is valid, none of the proposed options will be needed. Review of new data should not occur in a vacuum; not interested in taking more time. Moving from 10 to 14 units of allowable housing is a significant increase. Re-examining all of the assumptions is not advisable; update has been built into process. Endless revisions will cause the State to step in; process cannot drag on indefinitely. Support staff recommendations and appreciate efforts in reaching out to underrepresented population. Input from affordable housing sector is a very important component of the calculation. MOTION: Councilor Evans, seconded by Councilor Zelenka, moved to direct staff to prepare the UGB adoption package using the high density residential downtown redevelopment strategy and the medium density residential option B with exemptions for lots under a half an acre in size and subsidized affordable housing development. MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE: Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to substitute the main motion with a motion to direct the City Manager to come back to the City Council with an analysis of the technical statements in Mr. Helikson’s October 22, 2016, letter to FAILED 2:6, the Mayor and Council. Councilors Brown and Taylor voted in support. VOTE ON MAIN MOTION: PASSED 5:3 , Councilors Brown, Taylor, and Clark opposed. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 24, 2016 Page 1 Work Session and Meeting MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 October24,2016 7:30p.m. CouncilorsPresent: ,ClaireSyrettviaphone CEREMONIAL MATTERS 1. Mayor Piercy read a proclamation declaring October 2016 to be “Housing America Month” in Eugene. 2. PUBLIC FORUM 1. Jacob Fox – Gave a brief background on Housing America; supported affordable housing efforts. 2. Paul Neville – Thanked Mayor and Council for their support of affordable housing. 3. Emily Reiman – Supported Housing American proclamation and affordable housing. 4. Norton Cabell – Thanked Mayor and Council for their support of affordable housing. 5. Don Griffin – Thanked Mayor and Council for their support of affordable housing. 6. Ralph McDonald – Sustainability Commission supported the resolution on Standing Rock. 7. Shadi Miller – Supported installing a seasonal cover for Amazon Pool. 8. Artemio Paz Jr. – Supported the Climate and Energy Action Plan and climate efforts. 9. Vic Hariton – Supported more efforts to help the homeless. 10. Carolyn DeMarco – Supported more pool space and capacity for Eugene. 11. Dave Hauser – Said he is proud of progress downtown but concerned about public safety. 12. Caroline Cummings – Concerned about public safety in the downtown. 13. Mariah Leung – Concerned about militarization of police and police brutality. 14. Michael Adams – Concerned about public safety in the downtown. 15. Priyamon Makadath – Concerned about public safety in the downtown. 16. Jim Neu – Supported the climate recovery ordinance and efforts. 17. Laurie Powell – Supported the climate recovery ordinance and efforts and the TBL. 18. Coreal Riday-White – Supported the climate recovery ordinance and efforts. 19. Serena Orsinger – Supported the climate recovery ordinance and actions. 20. Sue Sierralupé – Provided an update on Occupy Medical efforts and activities. 21. Mel Hite – Supported more efforts to help the homeless. 22. Bodhi Richards – Supported affordable housing and more efforts to keep up with the need. 23. Wesley Georgiev – Supported Transportation Safety Plan updates for bikes and pedestrians. 24. Thomas Pettus-Czar – Concerned about public safety in the downtown. 25. Donna Riddle – Concerned about the incident with police in the park blocks. 26. Alden McWayne – Supported the climate recovery ordinance and actions. 27. Gwendolyn Iris – Concerned about the incident with police in the park blocks. 28. Michael Carrigan – Supported more efforts for the homeless and rest stops citywide. 29. Shanalea Forrest – Concerned about incident with police in the park blocks. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 24, 2016 Page 2 Work Session and Meeting 30. Andrea McKinnon– Supported more pool space and a cover for Amazon Pool. 31. Drix – Supported making connections with other people. 31. Steve Johnson – Supported more pool space and upgraded swimming facilities. 33. Lee Deveau – Concerned about incident with police in the park blocks. 34. Chris Calef – Concerned about incident with police in the park blocks. 35. Eimar Boesjes – Concerned about public safety in the downtown. 36. Ian Curtis – Supported more efforts on climate change. 37. Heidi Fikstad – Supported the 1,000 ft. buffer zone between cannabis dispensaries. 38. Alfredo Gormezano – Concerned about incident with police in the park blocks. 39. Karl Eysenbach – Supported more efforts for the homeless and a shelter. 40. Stefan Strek – Concerned about safety issues in Eugene. Council discussion: Identify creative ways to improve the atmosphere downtown for all. Discussion of retail cannabis regulations still needed. Addressing criminal behavior is appropriate; different from criminalizing homelessness. Concerns about safety issues in downtown are increasing citywide. Arrest was precipitated by a drug interaction, not because person was homeless. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION AND VOTE: Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved to approve the PASSED 8:0. items on the consent calendar except item C. VOTE ON ITEM C: PASSED 8:0 4. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance Concerning Annual Maintenance of the Land Use Code and Amending Sections 9.0500, 9.2160, 9.2451, 9.2461, 9.2600, 9.2620, 9.2750, 9.2777, 9.3165, 9.3210, 9.3215, 9.3970, 9.4130, 9.6210, 9.6640, 9.7000, 9.7015, 9.7230, 9.7405, 9.7505, 9.7810, 9.8005, 9.8085, 9.8090, 9.8215, 9.8220, 9.8320, 9.8325, 9.8360, 9.8423, 9.8430, 9.8440, 9.8445, 9.8515, 9.8520, 9.8705, 9.8710, 9.8750, 9.8755, 9.8760, 9.8810 and 9.8855 of the Eugene Code, 1971. 1.John Barofsky – Supported changes; concerned with lack of staff in Planning Department. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER Nothing was reported. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 24, 2016 Page 3 Work Session and Meeting ATTACHMENTD MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil Avenue HarrisHall,125East8 th Eugene,Oregon97401 October26,2016 12:00p.m. CouncilorsPresent:#« ¨±¤ 3¸±¤³³µ¨ ¯§®¤ CouncilorsAbsent: WORK SESSION: Coordinated Downtown Development 1. Central Services Executive Director Kristie Hammitt, Assistant City Manager Sarah Medary, and Design and Construction Manager Mike Penwell gave a PowerPoint presentation discussing the process, progress updates, and preliminary development scenarios of the coordinated downtown development plan. Council discussion: Farmer’s Market does not want to move from its current location. MOTIONANDVOTE: PASSED4:3 MOTIONANDVOTE: PASSED7:0. MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 26, 2016 Page 1 Work Session MOTIONANDVOTE: PASSED4:3 MINUTES – Eugene City Council October 26, 2016 Page 2 Work Session ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611143B.doc ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611143B.doc A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx A=action; PH=public hearing; WS=work session J:\\CMO\\CC\\CCAGENDA.docx ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611144.doc i.e. RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION th at 1777 E. 30 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (Assessor’s Map 18-03-08-11, Tax Lot 602). ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611144.doc ATTACHMENT A BALLOT MEASURE 49 (ORS 195.300 – ORS 195.336) CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER NAME OF CLAIMANTS: Chad and Katie Wilson th PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1777 E. 30 Avenue Eugene, OR 97405 CLAIMANTS’ REPRESENTATIVE: Bill Kloos PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION: Tax Lot 602 of Assessor’s Map 18-03-08-11 ZONING: Low Density Residential; R-1 I.Summary of Claim Chad and Katie Wilson (Claimants) submitted a claim under Ballot Measure 49 for compensation for the alleged reduction in fair market value to their property located at 1777 E. th 30 Avenue in Eugene, Oregon. The property currently contains a residence, built in 2004, on the southwest portion of the property. Claimants built the residence with the intention of later converting it to a “secondary dwelling unit” and building a larger, primary residence on the northern portion of the property. Claimants assert that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., which limits and prescribes a certain method of measuring the height/sloped setback of detached secondary dwelling units, restricts the residential use of their property, as it prohibits them from converting the residence built in 2004 into a secondary dwelling. Claimants contend that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., enacted in 2014, reduces the fair market value of their property. Claimants assert a $60,000 decline in the value of their property, but do not specifically articulate a request for compensation. Rather, Claimants request that the City waive EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., allowing them to construct a new primary dwelling on their property and to convert the existing dwelling into a legal detached secondary dwelling unit. II.Summary of City Manager’s Recommendation Measure 49 generally grants a property owner of residentially zoned land located within an urban growth boundary the right to compensation or waiver of the regulation (at the option of the government) if five substantive requirements are met. First, the regulation must constitute a “land use regulation” as that term is defined by Measure 49. Second, the public entity against which the claim is made must have enacted the regulation after January 1, 2007, but not more than five years before the date the claim was filed. Third, the regulation must “restrict the residential use” of residentially zoned private property. Fourth, the effect of the regulation must be to cause Page 1 – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER a reduction of the fair market value of the property. Fifth, the regulation must not fall within one of Measure 49’s six exemptions. As discussed below, the regulation that is the subject of this claim qualifies as land use regulations, was enacted after January 1, 2007, and less than five years before the date the claim was filed, effectively restricts a previously allowed residential use on the residentially zoned property, and reduces the property’s fair market value. Further, the regulation does not fall within one of Measure 49’s six exemptions. Therefore, this report concludes that the claim is valid. If a claim is determined to be valid under Measure 49, a local government must either (1) compensate the claimant for the reduction in the fair market value of the property, or (2) authorize the claimant to use the property without application of the land use regulation “to the extent necessary to offset the reduction in the fair market value of the property.” The Claimants do not specifically request compensation; accordingly, the City Manager recommends that the City Council waive EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. as it relates to the existing structure on the property and to the extent the waiver is needed to allow conversion of that structure to a secondary dwelling unit. III.Analysis of Claim A.Ownership Measure 49 provides for payment of compensation or relief from (waiver of) specific regulations for “owners” as that term is defined by the Measure. Ballot Measure 49, defines “owner” to include “\[t\]he owner of fee title to the property as shown in the deed records of the county where the property is located\[.\]” ORS 195.300(18). Based on the information submitted by the Claimants (Warranty Deed 2003-082408 and Deed 2014-049003), and information from the Lane County Regional Land Information Database (RLID), the City Manager concludes that the subject property was acquired by Claimant Chad Wilson on August 26, 2003, and an undivided one-half interest in the property was transferred to Claimant Katie Wilson on December 9, 2014. Accordingly, both Claimants are owners. B. “Land Use Regulations” Measure 49 requires compensation (or waiver) only for those regulations that constitute “land use regulations” as that term is defined by Measure 49. Further, the regulation must have been enacted after January 1, 2007. Measure 49 defines “land use regulation,” with respect to cities, as a “provision of a city comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or land division ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential use.” ORS 195.300(14)(c) For purposes of Measure 49, EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a “land use regulation” if it is a provision of a city zoning ordinance that restricts the residential use of private real property zoned for residential use. EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a provision of the city’s zoning ordinance, and it regulates residential uses on property zoned for residential uses. This land use regulation was adopted as part of Ordinance No. 20526, which became effective April 12, 2014. Thus, the only question remaining is whether EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. “restricts the residential use” of the subject property. Page 2 – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER C. Restriction on Residential Use A “land use regulation” gives rise to a Measure 49 claim only if the regulation restricts the residential use of private property and thus reduces the fair market value of property. The specific regulation that Claimants point to is EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., which provides a height limit for new attached and detached secondary dwelling units within the city-recognized boundaries of Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount Neighbors and South University Neighborhood and proscribes a method for 1 determining the height of a building. Adopted on March 12, 2014 (by Ordinance No. 20526) and effective on April 12, 2014, EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. establishes the following limitations for detached secondary dwellings in that neighborhood: (17) Secondary Dwellings in R-1 . . . . (c) Area-Specific Secondary Dwelling Standards. The following standards apply to all new attached or detached secondary dwellings in the R-1 zone within the city- recognized boundaries of Amazon Neighbors, Fairmount Neighbors and South University Neighborhood Association: . . . . 9. Building Height/Interior Setback. For detached secondary dwellings: a. The interior yard setback shall be at least 5 feet from the interior lot line. In addition, at a point that is 8 feet above grade, the setback shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically for every 12 inches horizontally (approximately 40 degrees from horizontal) away from the lot line until a point not to exceed a maximum building height of 18 feet. b. The allowances for setback intrusions provided at EC 9.6745(3) do not apply within the setback described in 1. above, except that eaves, chimneys and gables are allowed to project into this setback no more than 2 feet. Prior to the Council’s adoption of the above-quoted code provision, the code-prescribed manner for measuring the building height of a detached secondary dwelling would have allowed for the Claimants’ existing dwelling to have been converted to a lawful detached secondary dwelling.See Section 2 of Ordinance No. 20417. That is, under the code provisions that existed Њ While Claimants do not provide this information, staff has determined that the subject property falls within the boundaries of the Fairmount Neighbors. Page 3 – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, the Claimants’ existing structure met the height requirement for a detached secondary dwelling. However, the code-prescribed manner for measuring the building height of a detached secondary dwelling that went into effect on April 12, 2014 (quoted above), prevents the Claimants from converting the existing structure to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. That is, based on the measuring method adopted in 2014, the Claimants’ existing structure exceeds the maximum height allowed for a detached secondary dwelling. Claimants assert that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. is a “land use regulation” that “restricts the residential use” of the subject property because their existing structure satisfied the height requirements for a detached secondary dwelling prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526 but no longer satisfied the height requirements after the adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Stated another way, prior the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526, Claimants could have converted the existing residence to a detached secondary dwelling unit and constructed another, primary, residence on the subject property. In fact, in June of 2014, Claimants sought a building permit to do just that. However, because Ordinance No. 20526 went into effect on April 12, 2014 (approximately two months prior to the Claimants seeking a building permit), the City could not issue Claimants the building permit to convert the existing residence into a secondary dwelling. On March 12, 2013 (one year before the regulation was enacted), Claimants could have converted their existing structure into a detached secondary dwelling and constructed a new, larger, primary dwelling on the remainder of their property.The record reflects that the Claimants intended to do so. Following adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. Claimants could no longer convert the existing dwelling into a detached secondary dwelling unit because, based on the manner in which the structure must be measured, the existing structure is too tall to qualify as a detached secondary dwelling unit. Thus, the residential use currently allowed on the Claimants’ property is restricted by EC 9.2751(17)(c)9.,when compared to what was allowed on the Claimants’ property prior to the 2014 adoption of Ordinance No. 20526. D. Reduction in Value The regulation restricts the residential use of the subject property in such a way that reduces the fair market value of the property. Claimants submitted appraisals of the fair market value of the property one year before the adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. (March 12, 2013) and one year 2 after the adoption of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. The March 12, 2013, appraisal provides a property value of $470,000. The March 12, 2015, appraised provides a property value of $410,000. As of the date of this Recommendation, there is nothing in the record that contradicts the accuracy of the appraisals submitted by Claimants. Accordingly, the appraisals confirm that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., which restricts the residential use of the Claimants’ property, reduces the fair market value of the Claimants’ property. E. Exemptions Finally, a Measure 49 claim is not valid if the challenged regulation falls within one of the exemptions under the Measure. Regulations adopted to protect the public health and safety, prevent nuisances, or comply with federal law are exempt under Measure 49, even if they otherwise constitute “land use regulations” that “restrict the residential use” and “reduce the fair 2 Measure 49 requires the reduction in fair market value of the property be demonstrated through an appraisal that meets certain requirements. ORS 194.310(2). The appraisal submitted by Claimants satisfies those requirements. Page 4 – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER market value” of property. Regulations that (1) restrict or prohibit the use of the property for selling pornography or performing nude dancing, (2) plan and rezone land for industrial zoning to be included in the UGB, or (3) plan and rezone land already within a UGB to industrial zoning, are also exempt under Measure 49. Finally, Measure 49 does not apply to regulations that were enacted before the Claimant(s) acquired the property. The regulation at issue in this claim does not fall within any of these exemptions. IV. Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the analysis set-forth above, the City Manager recommends that the City Council conclude that the subject Measure 49 claim is valid. In lieu of compensation, the City Manager recommends that the City Council waive the height limit provisions of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. to the extent such waiver is necessary to offset the reduction in fair market value. The scope of the City Manager’s recommended waiver addresses only the applicability of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. to the Claimants’ conversion of the existing structure to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. The recommended waiver does not address the applicability of any other provision that might preclude such conversion. Further, the waiver of the height limit in EC 9.27.51(17)(c)9. does not allow further modifications to the Claimants’ existing structure that would increase the height of the structure above the height that existed on the date that Claimants’ filed their Measure 49 claim with the City (February 24, 2016). Because the City Manager is recommending that the Council grant the Claimants’ a waiver of the height limitation in EC 9.2751(17)(c)9., and Measure 49 authorizes a public hearing by the City Council in such instances, this claim has been scheduled for a public hearing on November 14, 2016. Page 5 – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A MEASURE 49 CLAIM AND WAIVING A PROVISION OF CHAPTER 9 OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971, FOR TH PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1777 E. 30 AVENUE, EUGENE, OREGON (ASSESSOR’S MAP 18-03-08-11, TAX LOT 602). The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that: A. Chad and Katie Wilson submitted a claim to the City seeking compensation or a waiver of regulations under Ballot Measure 49. Claimants alleged that the maximum height limit provision in subsection (17)(c)9. of Section 9.2751 of the Eugene Code, 1971 (EC), that applies to detached secondary dwellings on the subject property restricts the residential use of th their property and diminished the fair market value of the property at 1777 E. 30 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon (the property). B. The City Manager has caused an investigation of the claim to be made, has determined the claim to be valid, and has submitted to the Council a Report and Recommendation that EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. be waived. The scope of the City Manager’s recommended waiver addresses only the applicability of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. to the Claimants’ conversion of the existing structure to a lawful detached secondary dwelling. The recommended waiver does not address the applicability of any other provision that might preclude such conversion. Further, the waiver of the height limit in EC 9.27.51(17)(c)9. does not allow further modifications to the Claimants’ existing structure that would increase the height of the structure above the height that existed on the date that Claimants’ filed their Measure 49 claim with the City (February 24, 2016). C. Considering the City Manager’s recommendation and conclusion as to the validity of the claim, and the lack of City funds with which to pay compensation to the claimants, the City Council finds the public interest will be best served by waiving the requirement of EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows: Section 1. Based on the above findings, which are adopted, and the analysis contained in the Report and Recommendation of the City Manager, the City Council hereby waives EC 9.2751(17)(c)9. for the property owned by Claimants Chad and Katie Wilson, Assessor’s Map 18-03-08-11, Tax Lot 602. Section 2. A copy of this Resolution shall be forwarded to Chad and Katie Wilson at thth 1777 E. 30 Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97405, to their representative, Bill Kloos at 375 W. 4 Street, Suite 204, Eugene, Oregon 97401, and to the City’s Planning & Development Department. A copy of this Resolution shall be recorded with the Lane County Records Department. Resolution - Page 1 of 2 Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. The foregoing Resolution adopted the 14 th day of November, 2016. ________________ City Recorder Resolution - Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTC ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611145.doc RELATEDCITYPOLICIES COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S1611145.doc ATTACHMENT A orrective Legal C Type:Type: Annual Maintenance of the Land Use Code Commercial Zone Land Uses and Permit Requirements Proposed Change:Proposed Change: 2016 October adjustment (as opposed to a replat). Currently, applications for property line adjustments must be consistent ot line. For consistency with publicly owned open spaces are (8) is no (Ordinance No. new homeless shelter (subject to a the addition of a new (8) as part of longer the correct reference, due to Code line through a property line , subject to (8) of the Special arks and , as well as which precludes the removal of a reconfiguration of a lot or parcel definition needs to be removed. for a Zone Definition of Reconfiguration The reference needs be lot or corrected to reflect the update. State law has changed to Proposed Amendments 3 and GO Zone Amendments, the allowance state law, this portion of the the Employment/Industrial rt of the allow removal of a platted Limitations. However, p Table 9.2160, Employment/Industrial permit) with the definition of - 2, C Code Amendments Additionally, as pa - conditional use C the allowed in Per platted l . 20528) parcel Issue:Issue: zones - Use on 1.2. n ATTACHMENT A orrective C Type: nd Use and Permit Requirements Proposed Change: Employment and Industrial Zone La commercial zone Certain commercial uses, such personal services and wholesale and of this provision to allow these uses on confusion as to the standard for lots amended to clarify the applicability. Additionally, the provision needs to size of a building, not the entire use s, 2 Although the intent limitation specifically relates to the Mixed Use Employment zone if the not distribution centers and wholesale when - Employment/Industrial Zone Code 0 square foot . (the documented as part of the record 2 that do not front such streets. As 4 zone was changed to the E (which would include parking area 4 . 2 zone) for the - - with frontage removed from the C , and need to be correctedretail trade are allowed in the E ted on a major is section needs to be ere , there has been , zone ed landscaping, etc). zone the allowance for regional w - s street is allowed in the Efor the adoption process Mixed Use Employment listing rial 0 Commercial/Industrties from the clarify that the 30,0 However, the use street. arterial property is loca on prope Amendment ere removed are major associat arterial such, th w trade - Issue: only the C table s use 3. a ATTACHMENT A CorrectiveCorrective Type:Type: and Industrial Zone Development Standards Proposed Change:Change: Proposed Park, Recreation and Open Space Zone the name of the landscape standard 2 and However, , Code ğƌƌ the intended standard is the High , internal inconsistency 3) adjacent to a street, to However, two references to this 4). To Table 9.2461 was Recreation Plan was repealed in plan remain in the land use code - No. 20362). amended to require the High Employment/Industrial Zone - Landscape Standard (L The Eugene Parks and standard in I - . ich is L . and need to be removed . screen outdoor storage needs to be corrected As part of the (not High Wall, wh Employment 3) inance , - Amendments (L correct this Landscape 2006 (Ord 3 zones {ĭƩĻĻƓ Issue:Issue: 4.5. - I ATTACHMENT A CorrectiveCorrectiveCorrective Type:Type:Type: Proposed Change:Proposed Change:Proposed Change: References Residential Zone Development Standards Average Lot Width - adopted as part of the Single Family table needs to be revised consistent Code Amendments (Ordinance No. the special development lot width was revised several years Bicycle Parking Requirements se did not provide New standards for existing The method for measuring family Alley Access standards (Ordinance No. 20492) be deleted. 1 2751(18)). . As such, the receding the When the bicycle parking - 1 Low 20541). These standards were reference to average lot width were intended to only apply in the R ago to eliminate the use of - the same clarity regarding conjunction with the multi standards were revised in Density Residential zone - in the R EC 9.- Duplex Division needs to However, the table p are titled with the standards. 1 standards - see to R s alley access lot remains and ( applicability standards zone, and 1 - specific Lots in R Issue:Issue:Issue: 6.7.8. ATTACHMENT A e.g., Corrective Type: Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Uses and Permit Requirements Proposed Change: within the these standards found elsewhere in the land use code were not changed accordingly. These sections need to Downtown Westside, the reference . In DW standards are intended to apply in 3 DW 4 permitted use subject to the Bed be updated to reflect the correct zone - Density Residential) apply. provides standards for bed and renumbered. Two references to- were development be subject to the 2, R zone), a bed and breakfast is a in the table needs to be revised - and Breakfast Standards at EC standards established for the R which of the Within the Downtown - Westside Special Area Zone (S However, EC 9.5100 (not the S - 1, RDW 4 parking standards code sections - provides that residential , the standards for R - - S this case, because the breakfasts in the AG, R es only code references. . To clarify some of the 4 zon 9.5100. - bicycle Issue: zone) and R High zone 9. ( ATTACHMENT A CorrectiveCorrective Type:Type: Downtown Westside Special Area Zone Development Standards Proposed Change:Proposed Change: Zone Commercial Airport Safety Overlay material. Table 9.3215 provides this scape requirements. To resolve 21, which The height limitations in the , per the amended to be consistent with the Special Area Zone requires that 20 Commercial Airport Safety overlay minimum requirement. However, be standard for Minimum Landscape percent of a development site be reas from counting towards this required landscaping, such as for required landscaping for parking such, reference to it needs to be the special standards associated The Downtown Westside As with this table conflict with this street parking areas, can be Area, and specifically excludes needs to provision, and state that any landscaped with living plant . Eugene Airport Master Plan applied towards minimum - ecommissioned zone reference Runway 3 this conflict, the table special standards. has been dremoved. Issue:Issue: land - 10.11. off a ATTACHMENT A CorrectiveCorrective Type:Type: Proposed Change:Proposed Change: Low Screen Landscape Standards Application Completeness Review not practical (which is at the can often take more than 180 days), Previously they were subject to the for very end of the review process and subject to the Type I (administrative interior lot lines, depending on the change in process, and recognition because these applications are not Consistent with changes to s or subdivisions became ) be ago. this state law, final plat applications Landscape Standard is required Because the Low Screen along both streets lot lines and review . official final plat is ready to be complete until the exempt from this requirement need to ) land use application of requirements several years As a result needs to be removed for requirement for Type II (Planning Director completeness review is final plat applications signed and recorded . clarification. requirements technically the partition Issue:Issue: review that 12.13. ATTACHMENT A Corrective Legal Type:Type: Proposed Change:Proposed Change: Type IV Application Requirements and Criteria site review or The proposed change processed currently with other land applications, as opposed to a Type V rds review applications have be submitted and approved before expired, and new application must , which are effective n result in a for adjustment reviews and traffic consistent with state planned unit development can be is similar to that already provided or legislative application process. xpiration development is in effect, but the are tandards effective for 18 months. This is law (and current practice), this section needs to be revised to subdivision or situation where an approved provide for site specific code or planned unit impact analysis applications s concurrently with tentative approval subdivision or planned unit applications are processed problematic when these ments as Type IV E pplication s and This ca approved eview application use applications. review the concurrent implemented. for 36 months. developments To be A subdivisions concurrent Type II ite S amend standa Issue:Issue: 14.15. r ATTACHMENT A Corrective Type: Change: Proposed Annexation Application Requirements noticing the Oregon Department of Revenue at the end of the process. ions for annexations sized Due to a change in state process, cadastral map from Lane County Assessment and Taxation for - a full are required to include pplicat A Issue: 16. ATTACHMENT A Corrective Type: Proposed Change: Walnut Station Special Area Zone References alphabetical 15 to be changed to include the Walnut standards. that need to . need (Ordinance No. 20460), sections EC which Numerous and 9 reference to it needs be removed As a result of the Walnut Special Area Zone being 9.3950 through EC 9.3980 were Agricultural Zone through EC 9.3 here are a number of Whiteaker Special Area Zone) zones ( needed added to the land use code EC 9.2000 . Special Area Zone listing of all base zones. added at the end of the EC 9.3980 3915 to all base er . this map is no long 9 EC ere be changed to references to sly w references As such, t Station Station previou Issue: 17. ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A Corrective Type: Application Requirements Proposed Change: lanned Unit Development individual that are intended to create separate inal For PUDs ntil planned unit development (PUD) f a submitted for final approval u requirements for phases of a PUD may not be stipulate that the phases are legal lots. The pplication Final P Issue: 18. a ATTACHMENT A Corrective Type: Proposed Change: eferences R Metro Plan Amendment Process this creates a situation that is impossible are intended to ly, this provision needs to As a result of the Metro Plan ) . Ordinance No. 20400 set up the phase boundaries, to be , EC subdivision (which were added approved until the implementing that 9.7835 creates the legal lots) cannot be subsequent subdivision process. The approved were lots (such as a residential PUD), EC references to ections throughout the code Amendment Process Code EC . implemented though the EC 9.7800 through 9.7885 to reflect these changes to 9.7800 through 9.7835 plans for a final PUD amended , and new s several PUD is finalized. , as the Amendments ( be removed. o be There are According repealed to meet 9.7885need t Issue: 19. ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT A Legal Type: Proposed Change: partitions, subdivisions and a site review application is , which conditional use As also such, this provision needs to be applications proposing needed inconsistent with state law. that Review Applicability s) unreasonable cost and delay planned unit development results in equirement including , and The r redundant removed. ( permits, complete Site housing Issue: 20. is ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 1of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 2of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 3of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 4of 16 ATTACHMENT B e.g., Ordinance - Page 5of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 6of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 7of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 8of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 9of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 10of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 11of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 12of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 13of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 14of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 15of 16 ATTACHMENT B Ordinance - Page 16of 16 EXHIBIT A Findings Annual Maintenance of the Land Use Code (City File CA 16-3) Findings Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following approval criteria (in bold italics) be applied to a code amendment: (1) The amendment is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. Goal 1 - Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement which insure the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such involvement. The amendments do not amend the citizen involvement program. The process for adopting these amendments complied with Goal 1 because it is consistent with the citizen involvement provisions. A Notice of Proposed Amendment was filed with the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development on June 6, 2016. A public hearing was scheduled before the Planning Commission on July 12, 2016. A public hearing before the City Council was held October 24, 2016. Consistent with code requirements, the Planning Commission public hearing and the City Council public hearing on the proposal was duly noticed to all neighborhood organizations in Eugene, community groups and individuals who have requested notice. In addition, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was also published in the Register Guard. Information concerning the proposed amendments, including the dates of the public hearings, were posted on the City of Eugene websites. These processes afford ample opportunity for citizen involvement consistent with Goal 1. Therefore, the ordinance is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 1. Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual basis for such decisions and actions. Eugene land use code specifies the procedure and criteria that were used in considering these amendments. The record shows that there is an adequate factual base for the amendments. The Goal 2 coordination requirement is met when the City engages in an exchange, or invites such an exchange, between the City and any affected governmental unit and when the City uses the information obtained in the exchange to balance the needs of the citizens. To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City engaged in an exchange about the subject of these amendments with all of the affected governmental units. Specifically, the City provided notice of the proposed action and opportunity to comment to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. There are no exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 2 required for these amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2. Findings - 1 EXHIBIT A Goal 3 - Agricultural Lands. To preserve agricultural lands. The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land designated for agricultural use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 3 does not apply. Goal 4 - Forest Lands. To conserve forest lands. The amendments are for property located within the urban growth boundary and do not affect any land designated for forest use. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 4 does not apply. Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. To conserve open space and protect natural and scenic resources. OAR 660-023-0250(3) provides: Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a Goal 5 resource only if: (a)The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5; (b)The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or (c)The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included in the amended UGB area. These amendments do not create or amend the Citys list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5, do not allow new uses that could be conflicting uses with a significant Goal 5 resource site and do not amend the acknowledged urban growth boundary. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply. Goal 6 - Air, Water and land Resource Quality. To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state. Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air, water and land from impacts from those discharges. The amendments to not affect the Citys ability to provide for clean air, water or land resources. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 6 does not apply. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards. To protect life and property from natural disasters and hazards. Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people and property from natural hazards such as floods, landslides, earthquakes and related hazards, tsunamis and wildfires. The Goal prohibits a development in natural hazard areas without appropriate safeguards. The amendments do not affect the Citys restrictions on development in areas subject to natural disasters and hazards. Further, the amendments do not allow for new development that could result in a natural hazard. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 7 does not apply. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, and where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. Findings - 2 EXHIBIT A Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The amendments do not affect the Citys provisions for or access to recreation areas, facilities or recreational opportunities. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 8 does not apply. Goal 9 - Economic Development. To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregons citizens. Goal 9 requires cities to evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objectives. The amendments do not impact the supply of industrial or commercial lands. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9. Goal 10 - Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state. Goal 10 requires communities to provide an adequate supply of residential buildable land to accommodate estimated housing needs for a 20-year planning period. The amendments do not impact the supply of residential buildable land. No land is being re-designated from residential use to a nonresidential use, and the amendments do not otherwise diminish the lands available for residential use. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10. Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development. The amendments do not affect the Citys provision of public facilities and services. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 11 does not apply. Goal 12- Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation system. The Transportation Planning Rule (OAR 660-012-0060) contains the following requirement: (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3), (9) or (10) of this rule. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it would: (a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted plan); (b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or (c) Result in any of the effects listed in paragraphs (A) through (C) of this subsection based on projected conditions measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted TSP. As part of evaluating projected conditions, the amount of traffic projected to be generated within the area of the amendment may be reduced if the amendment includes an enforceable, ongoing requirement that would demonstrably limit traffic generation, including, but not limited to, transportation demand management. This reduction may diminish or completely eliminate the significant effect of the amendment. (A)Types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (B)Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility such that it would not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or (C)Degrade the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise Findings - 3 EXHIBIT A projected to not meet the performance standards identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. The amendments do not change the functional classification of a transportation facility, change the standards implementing a functional classification system or degrade the preformation of a facility otherwise projected to not meet performance standards. Therefore, the amendments do not have a significant effect under (a), (b) or (c). Therefore, the amendments do not significantly affect any existing or future transportation facilities. Based on the above findings, the amendment is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 12. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation. To conserve energy. The amendments do not impact energy conservation. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 13 does not apply. Goal 14 - Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use. The amendments do not affect the Citys provisions regarding the transition of land from rural to urban uses. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply. Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway. To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway. The amendments do not contain any changes that affect the Willamette River Greenway regulations, therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply. Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources. There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the property effected by these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not affect compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19. (2) The amendment is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted refinement plans. The amendments do not include any change in adopted land use designations or policy, nor does it change any refinement plans. There are no policies or other applicable provisions in the Metro Plan or adopted refinement plans that specifically serve as mandatory approval criteria in this instance or otherwise limit the expiration period for approved land use applications. Therefore, the amendments comply with the above criterion. (3) The amendment is consistent with EC 9.3020 Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone, in the case of establishment of a special area zone. The amendments do not establish a special area zone. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. Findings - 4 ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND FY2016WorkPlanReport: FY2017WorkPlanDetails: Goal1: Goal2: Goal3: J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M161114\\S 1611146.docx RELATEDCITYPOLICIES EugeneCode 2.280HumanRightsCommissionȟWorkPlanandTaskGroups. (1) (3) COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTION ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION o o