HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/23/02 Work Session MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall
October 23, 2002
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: David Kelly, Gary Pap~, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Pat Farr,
Betty Taylor, Gary Rayor, Bonny Bettman.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order.
A.Work Session: Fall 2002 Land Use Code Amendments
City Manager Jim Carlson introduced Teresa Bishow and Jan Childs of the Planning Division and
City Attorney Emily Jerome, and explained that they were present to guide the council through a
work session on three separate proposed ordinances that govern the land use code.
Ms. Bishow stated that she would be reviewing the previous council directives that led to the
ordinances that this work session would cover, reviewing the recommendation from the Planning
Commission, and answering any questions that councilors would have.
Ms. Bishow said that many of the growth managements goals of the City could be achieved
through land use regulations, but that there was a subtle interplay between regulations,
conservation strategies, public infrastructure, and the market. She urged the City Council to
continue to build public trust that land use regulations would continue to be managed wisely and
that changes would be considered carefully and with public input.
Continuing, Ms. Bishow circulated an attachment entitled Fall 2002 Land Use Amendments: List
of Eugene Planning Commission Recommendations. She noted that no controversy has
arisen regarding Ordinance No. 1, and that the Planning Commission had voted unanimously to
recommend approval of it. She said that the council could take action on it or it could be taken
forward to further work sessions for deliberation.
Ms. Bishow stated, regarding Ordinance No. 2 which addresses the council directive to examine
the Nodal Development Overlay Zone, that Ms. Childs would respond to any questions and that
the ordinance was also recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission. She noted that
this ordinance was the most timely and important to act upon of the three to allow the City to
move forward with public notices concerning the application of the overlay zone to eight nodal
development areas. She related that the Planning Commission was interested in pursuing the
necessary code amendments prior to that public hearing process.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 1
Work Session
Ms. Bishow reported that Ordinance No. 3 primarily addressed flag lots. She noted that support
for recommending this ordinance on the Planning Commission was not unanimous, with two
commissioners voting against it. She related that Commissioner Jon Belcher believed that a
broader residential infill analysis should be conducted and further reviews of design and
compatibility impacts should be completed prior to adjusting or relaxing the standards for flag lots.
Ms. Bishow explained that shared parking issues would be included in a future ordinance as this
issue is inter-related with some other unresolved issues that the Planning Commission had yet to
address. She noted that the commission had looked at the possibility of limiting the size of
surface parking areas on commercial land with the intent of requiring business to build multi-level
parking structures, but that the commission had felt, given the current business market, that this
would be too limiting.
Ms. Bishow related that the commission recommended that the council consider a commercial
land efficiency study in which the broader picture of commercial development would become more
clear.
Mr. Kelly thanked Ms. Bishow and the others for the staff introduction. He noted that some of the
commission's discussion was not included in the current ordinances being presented at the work
session. He requested that further ordinance recommendations include a work session as well.
Mr. Kelly said that the work program from the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) had been presented
to the council in July 2002, and that the re-adoption of the Chapter 6 amendments regarding work
on trees, and the "needed housing fixes" had been scheduled for fall 2002. He wondered if these
remand issues had been addressed. Ms. Childs responded that the City Attorney's Office has
been inundated with other ordinances. She said that the request was made through the review of
the work program, but that staff was limited and the work had not yet begun. Mr. Kelly felt that a
commitment had been made to the council, and that the City Council had discussed these
concerns in July as a result of this commitment.
Ms. Bettman hoped that the council would focus on the nodal development ordinance as there is
a timeline on it. She shared the frustration that staff was processing items that she felt could wait
as they were not as timely as nodal development. She said that she thought the plan had been to
resolve the litigation that the code was currently embroiled in prior to moving on to things that
were not considered to be as crucial. She felt that there are not enough protections in place
because of the LUBA remand.
Ms. Bettman endorsed the provision under special use limitations that specifies that new
development designed to be occupied by a single retail tenant could not exceed 50,000 square
feet. She expressed concern, however, that a business could bypass this limitation by locating, as
an example, a coffee cart inside the entrance. She wondered if the language could be "tightened
up."
Mr. Pap8 noted that there had been many comments from realtors and builders regarding the 20
percent slope, i.e., 2 inches of grade per 10 feet of land. He asked why there was nothing
regarding this in the code provisions being presented to the council. Ms. Bishow explained that
this issue had first been brought before the commission at a public hearing by an affected party.
She felt that the Planning Commission would not be forwarding a recommendation on this issue
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 2
Work Session
as it did not have the authorization to go beyond the scope of what the commission had provided
public notice on. The code section regarding slope was not included in the Fall 2002 Land Use
Code Amendments.
Mr. Pap~ asked if the setback restrictions on flag lots would apply to older dwellings. Ms. Bishow
responded that it would not be required for existing buildings. She felt that this would be
acceptable to the Lane County Homebuilders Association.
Ms. Nathanson commented that the council adds items to the workload of staff and the Planning
Commission occasionally, and noted that council had recently added telecommunications to the
list of items to be worked on. She felt that the importance of a single issue from the list could not
be accurately ascertained outside of the context of the entire list. She stressed that staff is
working hard.
Mayor Torrey asked for reasons why staff would like to see the council proceed with all three
ordinances. Ms. Childs responded that it was hoped that this would allow three things to be
"crossed off of the list." She stressed the importance of putting in the proper amount of
groundwork into the two ordinances with which Mr. Kelly was concerned.
Mr. Fart commented that it was important for City Councilors to consider the workload placed
upon staff.
Ms. Taylor felt that staff should bring an issue back to council if it becomes apparent that it can not
be completed in a timely fashion so that council has an opportunity to re-prioritize the workload.
She opined that land use ordinances should be brought before the Neighborhood Leadership
Council.
In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Bishow explained that a flag lot is a lot that has
been legally divided according to the flag lot standards. These lots do not have the required
minimum street frontage as a standard lot and are typically to the rear of a lot with a driveway
from the street.
Ms. Taylor stated that she favored keeping the setbacks and height restrictions.
Mr. Meisner said that he would like all three ordinances to go before a public hearing. He
commented that staff has been reduced due to budgetary constraints and that he recognized that
this had impacted the ability of staff to complete all of the work before them.
Ms. Childs responded that, regarding the remand ordinances, staff had heard from the council that
staff should not begin any new issues until the remand was completed.
Mr. Rayor pointed out that there was another track of development, that of the standard track,
which was clear and objective. He felt that it was clear and objective, as needed housing had no
site review, and that it was not arbitrary or capricious to limit them. He supported the ordinance
governing flag lots as it promotes infill within the City. He opined that lowering the setback for a
flag lot would allow a house to be placed with more consideration given to its ecological impact.
Mr. Kelly said, regarding prioritization of the work program, that he agreed that the list should be
considered in its entirety. He felt that this is exactly what had been done at the meeting in July.
He related that PDD Director Tom Coyle was present at that meeting and that the work program
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 3
Work Session
had been extensively discussed. He felt that staff had been given clear directives regarding the
work load at this meeting. He asked how council could better provide direction. Ms. Childs
responded that, at the time of the July meeting, staff had felt that the deadlines were attainable.
Speaking to Ordinance 2, Mr. Kelly felt that the code language did not support the italics on page
38 that addressed the amendment to the density that allowed for the adjustment to higher
minimum density requirements. Ms. Childs referenced the purpose statement, and explained that
the intent was that each node identified by the/ND Overlay Zone should achieve an average
overall residential density of 12 units per net residential acre. She related that the criterion for an
adjustment was conformance with the purpose statement.
Ms. Bettman said that she had concern that existing buildings should be treated the same as new
development, but she felt that there was not sufficient time to address this concern. She pointed
out that the Planning and Development Department has added its own items to the work program.
She felt that there was funding for the addition of one more planner and that this would be an
important position to fund, given the work load. She noted that $2.5 million had just been put into
the Facilities Reserve.
Continuing, Ms. Bettman related that Rick Duncan, an applicant to the Planning Commission, had
commented that the minimization of the setback requirements was being moved forward without
any design standards to guide it. She said she was not opposed to allowing flexibility of the siting
of a building on a flag lot if there were other criteria to require that it be compatible with
surrounding buildings.
Ms. Taylor spoke in support of density in new development, adding that she felt that denser
development could be promoted without harming the older neighborhoods in the City.
Ms. Bishow explained, in response to a question from Ms. Taylor, that the R-1 zone allowed for
non-residential uses in addition to single-family dwellings. She said that it protected property
owners from having an industrial use move in next door, but would not stop five unrelated adults
from living together and parking five cars in front of the neighboring dwelling. The Land Use Code
was only one method of protecting neighborhoods and promoting livability.
Ms. Childs clarified that the requirement related to owner-occupancy being recorded had been
pulled out of Ordinance 1 and added to Ordinance 3 as it was related to secondary dwellings.
Mr. Pap~ asked if the density requirements in the/ND overlay zone would allow much R-1 zoning.
Ms. Childs responded that each node would have a variety of zones. She stated that there is no
proposal to reduce the density in that area. She noted that within the Chase Gardens sub-area as
defined by the Willakenzie Plan, there is an R-1 area. Ms. Childs noted that there was a work
session scheduled for council to address specific questions to staff regarding the Chase Gardens
nodal development area to be held on the following Monday, October 28.
Mr. Fart commented that citizens that want nodal development should also welcome it in their own
neighborhoods.
Ms. Bettman stressed the importance of including in the language regarding secondary dwellings
that one dwelling must always be occupied by the owner of the property. She felt that this was not
a clear requirement should the sale of the property occur.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 4
Work Session
Ms. Childs stated that there would be a public hearing held later in the evening regarding these
ordinances.
B. WORK SESSION: Follow-up and Discussion from the Public Hearing on an Ordinance
Concerning Human Rights; Adding Sections 2.815 and 2.820, and Amending Sections
2.013, 2.265, 2.270, 2.280, 4.613, 4.615, 4.620, 4.625, 4.630, 4.635, and 4.645 of the
Eugene Code, 1971
City Manager Jim Carlson reported that several hundred e-mails had been received regarding the
code changes and amendments. He introduced Human Rights Program Director Greg Rikhoff.
Mr. Rikhoff provided a brief overview of the key elements of the ordinance changes as outlined on
the attachment entitled Proposed Ordinance Changes; October 23, 2002.
Mr. Rayor deemed this a "high profile issue." He said that he was not interested in "word-
smithing." He approved of the provision of benefits for unmarried domestic partners. He
expressed concern about the requirement for accommodations for transgendered individuals. He
felt that it may need to be stricken in order to make the ordinance more likely to be approved.
Ms. Nathanson related that the most frequent objection she had heard from constituents was in
regard to the cost of a perceived requirement that new bathrooms be built. She said that this was
apparently not the true intent of the ordinance. She reported that another concern that had been
raised was that of the perception that a person would dress as a woman to attain access to children
in a public restroom. She asked Mr. Rikhoffto respond to the concern.
Mr. Rikhoff stressed that safety is of primary concern to the Human Rights Commission and that
all people should be safe in a public restroom. He reported that the commission was unable to find
any data that supported the allegation that transgendered people were more likely to commit
crimes in a public restroom than any other segment of the population. He noted that 93 percent of
all juvenile sexual assault victims knew their attackers, according to the Bureau of Justice in 2000.
He added that 34 percent of the assaults were perpetrated by family members and 58 percent were
perpetrated by family acquaintances. He explained that attackers work very hard to blend in and
are not likely to dress differently to gain access. He said that, of the nearly 50 communities that
have chosen to protect people based on gender identity, the commission has been unable to find
any report of increased problems in restrooms.
Ms. Nathanson read the following quote from testimony received at the public hearing: "The
changes will afford them some protection with no moral assessment given or implied. It is simply a
matter of equity and extending protection to all. There are behaviors of others that I personally
dislike or disagree with, but that ought to have no bearing on equality under the law and protection
of government."
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 5
Work Session
Mr. Pap~ approved of the domestic partner registry. He said that it was clearly not a substitute for
marriage. He felt that it should be limited to only residents of the City of Eugene as nonresidents
could entail an increase in costs and providing the service to nonresidents would be governing
beyond the City's jurisdictional limits.
Regarding the possibility of a requirement for bathroom accommodations in the gender identity
sections of the ordinance, Mr. Pap~ appreciated that amendments would be introduced clarifying
that no additional restrooms would be required in existing or new facilities.
Mr. Farr commended the work that Mr. Rikhoff has done with the Human Rights Commission. He
expressed his belief that he does not have the right to dictate to others how they should live as long
as people are within the law. He expressed support for all of the components of the ordinance, but
that he was opposed to creating bathroom accommodations for transgendered individuals because
of privacy issues.
Mr. Kelly emphasized that if he thought that there was any increase in risk to individuals facilitated
by the ordinance changes before the council he would oppose them. He reiterated that the cities of
Portland and Salem, among 40-some others, had passed just such ordinance additions and
amendments with approximately the same wording. He related that a pre-operation transgendered
individual is required to live as the gender that they intend to become according to medical
protocol, including the use of restrooms. He felt the ordinance would provide these individuals
with more protection.
Mr. Kelly opposed restricting the domestic registry to city residents. He felt that the fee would
cover any potential increases to cost.
Mr. Meisner said he would not oppose an amendment that would eliminate any perceived
requirements to build restroom accommodations for transgendered individuals.
Mr. Meisner expressed tentative approval of a requirement that people wanting to participate in the
domestic registry be city residents. He stated that initially he had thought that this code revision
was a simple issue of equity. He said that, after reading some of the mail that he had received in
the recent weeks, he had become convinced that protection is needed. He related that he had
received mail that was threatening and filled with hate and that much of it had been couched in the
context of religion. He noted that religion has been misused as the modus operandi for acts of
violence committed in other countries recently.
Ms. Taylor supported the domestic registry and opposed limiting it to city residents. She felt that
leaving the registry open to all people may increase tourism. She opined that the Private Right of
Action should be omitted as an enforcement option.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 6
Work Session
Ms. Bettman thanked the Human Rights Commission for its work on these issues. She
commended the research and the debate that had contributed to the outcome. She said that the
domestic registry would pay for itself regardless of whether those registering were residents or not.
She felt it would be inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance to limit it to residents.
Continuing, Ms. Bettman stressed that the largest risk of sexual assault to female children comes
from adult heterosexual males with whom they are familiar. She supported clarifying how the
provision of facilities could be adequately addressed.
Mayor Torrey read a statement into the record delineating his feelings regarding the issue of
restroom facilities for transgendered individuals. He felt that only post-operative transgendered
individuals should be allowed in the restrooms that are provided for the gender to which the
individuals have been reassigned. He stressed that there should be a means by which an individual
should be able to prove that the restroom is the correct one to use, such as a letter from the
surgeon that had performed the surgery or a court order establishing the change of gender. He
opposed requiring employers to provide "reasonable access" to transgendered individuals. He
supported the encouragement of building of single-use unisex bathrooms, but felt that this society
was not prepared for the advent of the provision of only unisex restrooms. He said that the
language of the ordinance created a conflict by including the aforementioned requirement to
provide reasonable access while expressly stating that there will be no new construction required.
Mr. Farr reiterated that the issue of providing adequate privacy for the constituency.
Mr. Kelly disagreed that construction would be required by the language in the ordinance changes
that specified that reasonable access be provided. He requested that staff clarify this.
Mr. Carlson stated that, should the council want to change the ordinance, the council would need
to provide direction regarding any changes.
Mayor Torrey recommended that the ordinance be split into three issues. He implied that
maintaining the ordinance as one movement to approve or disapprove could jeopardize it
altogether.
Mr. Pap~ reiterated that his only concern had been with Section 4.635, regarding the inclusion of
ethnicity and gender identity to Public Accommodation Practices. He felt it raised issues of
pragmatics.
Mr. Rayor said that the public is seeing that the council is being responsive. He requested that the
changes suggested by the mayor be put into legislative format. He supported maintaining gender
identity as a protected class, but would not oppose making the ordinance mute on the issue of
public accommodation.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 7
Work Session
Ms. Nathanson commented that she had heard three people speak to four possible amendments.
She hoped that they would be put into legislative format for the consideration of the council.
Mayor Torrey stressed that his only concern had been with the provision of facilities and not with
the provision of protected status for individuals.
City Manager Carlson stated that the City Council would need to conduct a straw vote in order to
separate the ordinance into three parts.
Mr. Kelly opposed the division of the ordinance into three sections.
Mr. Farr moved to divide the ordinance into two sections. The motion died
for a lack of a second.
Mayor Torrey said that he could conceivably veto the whole ordinance, should the issue he was
concerned with regarding the provision of facilities not be addressed.
The meeting adjourned at 1:33 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Carlson
City Manager pro tem
(Recorded by Ruth Atcherson)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 23, 2002 Page 8
Work Session