Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/16/08 Work Session/Public Hearing M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session and Public Hearing Council Chambers – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon June 16, 2008 5:00 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Mike Clark, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Andrea Ortiz, Alan Zelenka, Chris Pryor, George Poling; Jennifer Solomon via teleconference. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the meeting of the Eugene City Council. 1. ACTION: Selection of Community Advisory Team Members for Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) Riverfront Master Planning Process Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint Mark John- son to the EWEB Community Advisory Team. Councilor Bettman asked if it were possible for the City to require modification of a quasi-judicial decision once the Advisory Team recommended a Master Plan and made an application to the City. Ms. Jerome explained at some point, in order for the property to be developed according to the principles listed, the applicant would be required to have the property rezoned and a Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) amendment for the diagram. The diagram amendment would come before the City Council, thus the council would have an opportunity to make a decision with respect to the property. Whether or not the decision point was a package that included the zone change and the Master Plan depended on how the applicant packaged the request. If it was packaged together, the City Council would make the decision on the whole thing and the Master Plan would be evaluated according to the four factors in the Downtown Plan policy. Councilor Bettman said when the council received a packaged request, it was an up or down vote and the City Council did not have a chance to change the application once it was presented to the council. Ms. Jerome responded in this case there was more discretion because the policy itself listed four criteria that allowed more discretion than the council was usually allowed. The Master Plan had to be consistent with the four principles. Councilor Bettman said criteria provided broad guidance to the Master Planning Committee and did not give the City Council more flexibility. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Councilor Taylor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to substitute Kevin Matthews. The motion to substitute Kevin Matthews failed 3:5, with Councilors Taylor, Bettman and Ortiz voting in favor, and Councilors Pryor, Clark, Poling, Zelenka and Solomon voting in opposition. The motion to appoint Mark Johnson to the EWEB Community Advisory Team passed 6:2, with Councilors Pryor, Clark, Zelenka, Poling, Ortiz and Solomon voting in favor, and Councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint Mary Unruh to the EWEB Community Advisory Team. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint Pat Johnston to the EWEB Community Advisory Team. The motion passed 6:2, with Council- ors Pryor, Clark, Zelenka, Poling, Bettman, and Taylor voting in favor, and Coun- cilors Solomon and Ortiz voting in opposition. Councilor Pryor, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to appoint Molly Myers to the EWEB Community Advisory Team. Councilor Clark, seconded by Councilor Poling, moved to substitute Anita Van Asperdt. Councilor Bettman would not support the amendment because Ms. Meyer had addressed issues of children and senior citizens in the community. The motion to substitute Anita Van Asperdt passed 6:2, with Councilors Ortiz, Pryor, Clark, Poling, Zelenka and Solomon voting in favor, and Councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. The motion to appoint Anita Van Asperdt passed 6:2, with Councilors Ortiz, Pryor, Clark, Poling, Zelenka and Solomon voting in favor, and Councilors Taylor and Bettman voting in opposition. The City Council took a recess from 7:10 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Councilor Ortiz asked to be excused from the Public Hearing, stating she would view it on Metro Vision or on-line since she had a commitment to attend the River Road Community Organization meeting. Councilor Solomon said she would watch the Public Hearing on her computer. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 2 Work Session 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Minor Code Amendments (MCAs) Mayor Piercy explained the process for conducting a public hearing. She said speakers would be limited to three minutes each and asked that City of Eugene residents identify which ward they lived in. City Manager Ruiz stated he was available to answer any questions that might arise. Ron Chase, 924 Sunnyside Drive, requested that the City Council postpone approval of the MCAs because they would have the net effect of decreasing housing density in a couple of neighborhoods as well as decreasing the number of allowable units, potentially setting a precedent for doing the same neighborhood by neighborhood citywide. Fifty percent of Eugene households were renters and the vacancy rate was very low, particularly regarding affordable housing. He daily saw how difficult it was for people with limited incomes to find an affordable rental through both his employment and personal circle. By decreasing density and increasing parking the council would effectively be increasing rents and pushing renters, particularly low-income renters, to the fringes of the urban growth boundary (UGB). With the increasing costs of transportation, whether people used mass transit or automobile, it was imperative to develop affordable housing downtown and in nearby core neighborhoods. He urged the City Council to look very closely at any change which inhibited that development and to follow the recommendation from the Housing Policy Board (HPB) by referring some of the changes to the Infill Compatibility Standards Task Team (ICS) for further discussion and to defer making permanent changes until a full discussion of the impact took place. Sue Prichard, 2671 Emerald Street, Ward 3, spoke as co-chair of the ICS. She said the ICS, the majority of whom represented neighborhood groups and had been involved from the early stages of the MCA process, was formed by the Planning Commission in November 2007. Other members represented the development, architectural and construction sectors of the community. The ICS formed a Minor Code Amendment Process Committee (MICAP) to review the proposed amendments which were selected by the Planning Commission and the City Council for the formal amendment process. MICAP reviewed each item, selected those that were of highest priority and brought their comments and recommendations to ICS for review and discussion. Fourteen of the twenty items were considered and commented upon. MICAP and ICS made no recommendations on the remaining six items. Ms. Prichard provided a copy to the council of the final ICS/MICAP recommendations presented to the Planning Commission. On March 17, 2008, the ICS unanimously passed a motion approving the MICAP report. All of the ICS recommenda- tions were in line with staff recommendations with the exception of the topic Required Parking in Residential Parking Program Permit Areas. ICS suggested a change to the proposed amendment that addressed the specific problem without addressing a potentially contentious citywide change. ICS had not had an opportunity to address the proposed amendments added by the City Council since the original list was developed, nor had it addressed the most recent minor revisions proposed by the Planning Commission. With the unanimous vote of the ICS prior to the additions of the City Council and minor revisions proposed by the Planning Commission, there was clear support to move forward with the ordinance. th Lauren Hulse, 1256 East 20 Avenue, Ward 3, reiterated the City Council direction to the Planning Commission on March 10, 2008. The City Council asked the City Manager to direct the Planning Commission to pursue the MCA process that would mitigate the following impacts of incompatible infill: MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 3 Work Session ? Excessive building height in R-3 and R-4 proximal to R-1 zones to reflect a height transition to R-1 zoned areas. ? Excessive demand for on-street parking in multi-family development in units with three or more bedrooms in R-3 zones. Residents had worked with Planning staff and the developer of the build- th ing at 19 Avenue and Alder Street to scale back the building from seven to four stories, and would continue to work with any developer that wanted to build in the neighborhood, particularly along thth 18 and 19 Avenues, so that buildings could be built that were compatible with the well estab- lished neighborhood. MICAP #5 offered a compromise for both neighbors and developers that pro- thth vided a gradual transition from R-4 on 18 Avenue to R-1, midway through 19 Avenue, for a gradual reduction from 120 feet to 30 feet in one and one-half blocks. There was no R-2 and the neighborhood would have increased density but it would be more compatible with the neighbor- hood. Residents of the South University Neighborhood (SUN) loved their neighborhood, and had invested not only financially, but with their time and spirit to nurture a thriving and healthy community. The residents supported compact growth and were prepared to accommodate significant changes in the area. They believed there were ways to make a positive contribution to established neighborhoods, rather than destroying what already existed. John Wager, 1183 Van Buren Street, had owned and lived in his home for 30 years. He was speaking as a member of the intergovernmental HPB with Councilor Solomon. He noted the HPB had submitted a letter to the City Council and Planning Commission which took a position on several of the proposed MICAP amendments. The HPB had concerns about the reduction in density that would occur. Although the amendments were minor individually by definition, in aggregate they were not minor. They would have the tendency to set precedent for other neighborhoods, thus having a ripple effect in the community. Individual amendments would also have a ripple effect because they would affect housing throughout the community every time core density was reduced. Lowering density impacted housing affordability, with the greatest impact on those with the least ability to afford and maintain decent housing. He encouraged the City Council to remember that as important as neighborhood groups were to the fabric of the community, they were not elected representatives, but self-selected and invariably property owners. He hoped to speak for the 50 percent of the community who were renters; they often did not attend public hearings because they were not aware of the impact that changes discussed might have on them. th Dan Herbert, 1913 Potter Street, lived directly across 19 Avenue from the subject of one of the code amendments related to densities and parking. He was interested in affordable housing and cautioned the City Council about making code amendments which might have a negative or suppressing effect on affordable housing. Through presentations at the HPB and the American Institutes of Architects (AIA) he understood how difficult it was to get affordable housing. It was important for the community to have affordable housing. The HPB had concluded that the MCA proposal needed further study, and he was persuaded that the City Council needed to be very careful about putting any more road blocks in the way of affordable housing than already existed. Al Couper, 2258 Harris Street, spoke in favor of the building height transition amendment. The protection was needed now because Oregon’s residential standards law was statutory - when development plans were submitted that met the code standards, 120 feet tall in Eugene, building permits were automatically issued from a zoning standpoint. This meant there was no notice to affected property owners, no opportunity to MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 4 Work Session comment, and no opportunity for the City Council or its designees to attach conditions that would make a development blend into the surrounding property. Additionally, the proposal before the council was reasonable. He had read the code and talked with planners in eight jurisdictions in the Willamette Valley and Bend, and noted that no one allowed 120-foot buildings in their highest density residential zone as a matter of right, and few allowed that under any circumstance. The average building height allowed under clear and objective standards would be less than 60 feet. The proposal was similar to what other cities in the region used to deal with the edge effect where height density bumped up against lower density. Each of the cities was bound by the same State law mandates as Eugene, in terms of UGBs, density, reducing vehicle miles, and clear and objective housing standards, but had found more graceful ways to deal with the edge effect. The proposal before the council would accomplish that and he urged the council to pass the building height transition amendment. thth Bill Spurling, 1958 Potter Street, held up a graphic of his neighborhood, including 19 Avenue and 20 Avenue at Potter Street. He supported the proposed code amendments but asserted 12-story buildings adjacent to single family homes was not acceptable. The modified MCA was a step in the right direction. Mike Russo, 1975 Potter Street, had undertaken a study to determine the answer to three questions: thth 1) how many residents lived in the eight blocks between 18 and 19 Avenues, and Agate and Hilyard th Streets, and a ninth block of R-4 to the south of 19 Avenue; 2) how many residents could be expected under current zoning, and 3) how many residents could be expected under MICAP proposal number five. The data was collected by walking the neighborhood, talking with building managers and residents, and counting names on mail boxes. He learned that the area was quite densely populated, with about 1,600 current residents. Under full build-out with current zoning, and using numbers from the Home Builders Association (HBA) he estimated over 10,000 people could reside in the area, which was more than the number of people who resided in Cottage Grove or Florence, and was extreme. Under MICAP proposal number five, 7,000 people could reside in the area. MICAP represented a measured approach that would result in a win/win situation. Time was of the essence in adopting the proposal. th Marsha Shankman, 893 East 20 Avenue, said she was on the board of the South University Neighbor- hood Association (SUNA). She was speaking in support of the MICAP amendments, particularly amended MICAP Amendment 5 related to the step-down in building heights. Her family had lived in a late 1920’s house for 22 years, which was one of three historic homes built at that time. Little had changed until last th summer when plans to build a seven-story student apartment complex at the corner of 19 Avenue and Alder Street were revealed. At that time she learned that the zoning jumped precipitously from R-1, single th family to R-3, and across 19 Avenue to R-4. She, along with a large group of concerned neighbors, had been actively involved in efforts to address incompatibility of the zoning in the neighborhood. She thanked the City Council for directing SUNA representatives to work through the MICAP amendments. Nowhere in City documents - including City codes, the Metro Plan, and the Growth Management Polices (GMPs) - was density valued over livability. Reading from City code 9.5500 on multiple family standards, she said the standards were met “to ensure that new multiple family development enhances the character of Eugene’s neighborhoods…to ensure the increased density that resulted from such development makes a positive contribution to the areas in which these developments are built…to ensure that the design of multiple family developments provides for sensitive transition to nearby, less intensive development…to provide physical environment that contributes to and enhances the quality of life.” She urged the City Council to establish a more sensitive transition and height limit by passing the amended MICAP Amend- ment 5. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Sina Kraft, 1939 Hilyard Street, Ward 3, was a big fan of affordable and low-income housing. When she bought her home in 1986, she enjoyed the diversity of pre- and post-war homes, and the fact that her neighbors ranged in age from 7 to 82. Most carports and garages were on the alley, neighbors met each other daily, 15 homes were owner-occupied and four homes were rentals. Today, only eight were owner- occupied and 11 were rentals. Three new owners were families with young children. Two weeks ago, construction vehicles arrived to demolish one of the single-family homes and clear-cut the lot. Construction had begun on a two-story, five-unit apartment building. Refinements from the ICS and Neighborhood Leaders would be welcome and needed to be added later. Tonight, she urged the council to quickly approve the proposed code amendments to preserve what was left of the unique character and quality of all Eugene neighborhoods while providing a diversity of housing for everyone. Gordon Anslow, 1953 Garden Avenue, Ward 2, was speaking as co-chair of the ICS Task Team a co- owner of a design/build business, and a private individual. The ICS had been asked to review everything in the Eugene Code related to building new dwelling units which had been a daunting task. With the MICAP provisions inserted by the City Council, certain neighborhoods would be allowed to cut in front of the ICS process. Although he objected to the MICAP process running parallel to ICS work, the City Council inserted items that represented use of the MICAP process to Trojan Horse the will of a few in the process, as a means to side-step the process, and have the merits of their desires weighed by the ICS, balanced against the interests of other neighborhoods and interest groups and integrated into a set of rules crafted for all of Eugene. This undermined the ICS work and did not sit well with him. Mr. Anslow and Steve Baker of the West University Neighborhood (WUN) were on the ICS multi-family committee which was discussing ways to ultimately address legitimate parking concerns in the resident parking program areas near the University of Oregon (University). These would require more parking and make changes to Chapter 9 that would allow designers and developers more creative ways to provide additional parking on site-specifics that would be pursued if given to ICS. Under the present form, ICS would have no say on the issue. As a member of the design/build community, many of the MICAP proposals, taken as a whole, would stifle affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. Amendments 5 and 7, were not minor, and should not be adopted. He had studied eight recent projects and none could be built due to requirements for large new parking lot areas. The amount of land required for parking limited the amount of remaining space used for outdoor living, circulation and landscaping, thus reducing the amount of achievable density. As a private citizen, he was appalled that the City of Eugene was willing to give wealthy homeowners whatever they asked for without concern for the effect on the lives of students and people on low- and fixed-incomes. Eugene was on its way to becoming a city for the wealthy, while blue collar families, elderly and disabled people struggled to find decent, affordable housing, and had to live in outlying areas. As currently written, MICAP was moving in the wrong direction. st Joan Dunbar, 1234 East 21 Avenue, Ward 3, was concerned about Amendment 5, and urged the council to adopt the MICAP version. The current code was broken and she urged the council to act quickly and use common sense with all of the amendments. She understood the need for affordable housing and the need to increase densities. The code also talked about livability. Eugene had a history of allowing buildings that violated the surrounding neighborhood she said, citing YA-PO-AH Terrace and Prince Lucien Campbell as examples. The proposed code changes provided an opportunity to change the codes before buildings went up. Amendment 5, transitioning building heights, provided a win/win situation and was a compromise solution providing an example of what people could do when constituents worked together. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 6 Work Session th Mike Westervelt, 853 East 20 Avenue, had attended a recent Planning Commission meeting and was dismayed by the proposals of some contractors and the HBA’s proposals to degrade the healthy, compact, close-in neighborhood of the South University Neighborhood (SUN). The neighbors had recently been portrayed as those who would deny various building contractors and real estate agents a way to make a living, which was not true. The neighborhood was already 50 percent rentals. The proposal would afford developers and others involved the opportunity to build structures ranging from three to twelve stories. Fortunately, most builders stopped at three or four stories, but the neighbors were trying to prevent the renegade builder who wanted to build the inappropriate ten- or twelve-story building. This would take place in an area that could still easily add thousands of residents. Single-family residences should not be subject to the negative repercussions of twelve-story buildings. The R-4 loophole in the neighborhood was th designated in the 1940’s to accommodate fraternities and sororities on 19 Avenue and clearly did not mean what R-4 meant today. South University residents had made it abundantly clear throughout the process that they were not in favor of zero growth, and realized the sustainability, “walkabilty” and “bikeability” benefits of living close-in. They believed appropriately managed infill growth benefited everyone, including the residents, City, UGB, environment, and University. He said many similar neighborhoods throughout the country had been destroyed by decisions such as the current proposals and asked why Eugene should follow that lead. Reading from a 2006 letter from Planning Commissioner Rick Duncan to then City Councilor David Kelly, Mr. Westervelt said, “Sometimes the government does not make correct decisions when it comes to land use. Because incorrect decisions are made, property owners should not be penalized until such time that a city could afford to change that action.” Residents of the SUN should not be penalized by deferring action on the proposed amendments. He asked the City Council to make the SUN a model of what an historic, livable neighborhood could be in times of density growth by passing the MICAPs including an amended version of Amendment 5. Doug Weber, 1330 Flintridge Avenue, spoke against passing MICAP, particularly parking and density in south Eugene neighborhoods. He had previously e-mailed his comments to the councilors. Changing zoning created multiple impacts on residents, the planning process, and property values. He referred to a recent article in the Register Guard and the shortage of housing for this year’s incoming freshman class at the University. Increased density and accompanying height to attain those densities could not be reconciled with older neighborhoods. Amendment 8 regarding drainage in River Road/Santa Clara (RR/SC) was unnecessary and potentially dangerous. The only option to most people in that area was a stormwater disposal system that would percolate water into the ground. The State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had made the use of dry wells difficult and expensive, when allowed. He asked what would prevent DEQ from forbidding these systems next year. Another problem with the amendment was lack of an accurate drainage way. The definition needed to be changed. Marilyn Milne, 2156 Harris Avenue, Ward 3, president of the SUNA, submitted a statement on behalf of the SUNA Board of Directors. The neighborhood was an established neighborhood with a mix of housing stock that was walkable and had a good elementary school. The SUN was currently in a precarious situation due to old zoning changes that undermined the current livability of the neighborhood. In the 1984’s, the Greek system received approval to construct R-4 housing near campus. R-4 was limited to three- and four-story buildings at that time. In the 1960’s the R-4 height jumped to 120 feet, the equivalent of ten- to twelve-story buildings. SUNA was formed in 1974, thus had no role in the 1960’s changes. th Both longtime and newer residents were surprised to learn about the current allowable height on 18 and th 19 Avenues. In addition to the building heights, the height jumped from R-1 single family to R-3 and R-4 MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 7 Work Session without any R-2 buffer zone in between. Other Oregon cities had prevented this type of jump. The SUNA request for an amended MICAP would put Eugene in conformance with other Oregon cities. The current zoning could allow up to 10,000 additional residents within a relatively small area. She said density should not equal intensity. MICAP Amendment 5 reduced building height while allowing for density. Zoning codes were a separate issue from affordable housing, and did not stipulate that housing had to be affordable. SUN residents were concerned about the livability of the neighborhood and were glad that GMP 6 stressed maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods while creating infill. The City Council could achieve that goal by passing MICAP amendments, particularly Amendment 5. Carolyn Jacobs, 2040 Agate Street, appreciated that the City Council had been supportive of neighbor- hoods. Working closely with staff, an amendment that was both a compromise and an urgently needed course of protection for the SUN had been developed, while work continued with the ICS process. Amendment 5 placed limits on building heights that would have only a nominal effect, as most builders were building projects below the maximum heights, and most current projects around the University were still allowable under Amendment 5. Neighbors were concerned about the few buildings that would be exceedingly out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood. The negative impacts of one inappropriate building would be felt for blocks in all directions. The proposed amendment would allow approximately 7,000 new residents in nine square blocks and would keep student housing where it belonged, close to the University, while keeping land elsewhere in the City available for other types of development. Everyone needed to join forces and acknowledge that compact, dense growth could be done well, but must be given careful design and planning, without degrading the neighborhood. This would result in the neighborhood becoming undesirable to families, for without families, the neighborhood could not support the elementary school, forcing residents to move out. She urged passage of all MICAP amendments. Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, member of Friends of Eugene, Southeast Neighbors, Neighborhood Leaders Council (NLC) and ICS Task Team said he supported the amendments. There was an irony with tonight’s hearings with one set of amendments that was about reducing density in residential neighborhoods and the other set of amendments that was about reducing density in a commercial neighborhood. Many people in the community were in favor of MICAP amendments and against the downtown amendments. Density with quality was needed. Quantitative data was not available to enable the community to make informed decisions. Daniel Hill, 4765 Village Plaza Loop, spoke on behalf of his architecture/construction firm, and as a member of ICS. He supported the majority of the MCAs, but Amendments 5, 7 and 8 were not minor, and should be referred to the ICS for further review. Amendment 5 was completely against the desire of the community, the council, the Planning Commission and the staff recommendation. The economic impact would change the values of the properties and the zoning by default. SUN was an appropriate area for the transitions and he did not believe any developer would build a 12 story building in the area. Properties could be tastefully designed under the current code and design guidelines could be implemented to ensure proper transitions would occur. Amendment 7 went against decades of code to limit parking. This amendment was counter-productive to encouraging people to refrain from using cars around campus. The current code dovetailed with the important movement of limiting greenhouse gases and carbon footprints. Limiting parking encouraged students to walk to campus. The two amendments together created the opposite effect of what many have worked on for years. Amendment 8 definitions of drainage way and appropriate or inappropriate filling of those drainage ways was problematic. He encouraged the council to not include Amendments 5, 7 and 8 as suggested by the Planning Commission and refer them to the ICS. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 8 Work Session th Paul Conte, 1461 West 10 Avenue, thanked the council for its support for Eugene residents and neighborhoods. The council had shown it understood that strategies for a diverse and vibrant city could be based on actions that degraded and destabilized established neighborhoods. Past actions and code provisions had led to damaging infill in more and more areas of Eugene. Density could be achieved with reasonable standards and appropriate design. There was community support for twelve of the proposed amendments as evidenced by support by community organizations and a petition signed by over 300 people. According to the HPB minutes there was no quantitative discussion about the proposed amend- ments. The connection between affordable housing and the effect of the proposed standards was not supported by data, but was rather an emotional reaction. An emotional reaction resulted in tenement housing rather than affordable housing. He urged the council to adopt the proposed amendments. Mandi Butler, P.O. Box 7425, represented Future B Homes and was an HBA Board member. The MCA process was intended to make minor code changes, which implied non-controversial changes that did not affect policy. She found many of the proposed amendments were not minor, were controversial and effected policy. Amendment 5, graduated building heights and Amendment 7, had grave effects on housing in Eugene. Reduced density in R-3 and R-4 would limit if not prevent infill, reduce campus housing and was at odds with the GMPs. Amendment 8, related to RR/SC stormwater issues, took poorly written language from the Stormwater Manual and placed it into the code and would result in a reduction in the City’s buildable residential land. It would also raise the cost of housing and make it difficult for families to buy a house in Eugene. The amendments should not be passed at this time. Amendments 5, 7 and 8 should be referred to the ICS for a more comprehensive review. Lloyd Tolbert, 83 Centennial Loop, Suite 1, had worked with the City’s land use code as a local land surveyor for 15 years, in doing infill partitions, property line adjustments, and subdivisions. He currently was monumenting the exterior boundary of the newly acquired Ridgeline Trail. He had been involved with the MCA and supported those amendments that went through the entire process, but had issues with Amendments 5, 7 and 8. The original 200 proposed amendments were ranked based on criteria that included consistency with GMPs, level of concern, cost, public involvement, complexity, intensity of impact, environmental impact and controversy level, as well as other criteria. The Planning Commission, interested community members, and the consultant reduced the number to approximately 20, with a focus on those that were less controversial due to the necessity to get the first round of the MCAs passed for the good of the public. Amendments 5, 7 and 8 were not housekeeping items and needed a closer review. He asked that Amendments 5, 7 and 8 be forwarded to the ICS or separated into their own bundle. He thanked the City Council, the Planning Commission and staff for their work. Dan Neal, 1361 Pearl Street, said Amendment 7 would increase the amount of required parking for multi- family development in the Agate Street to Hilyard Street corridor (corridor), which amounted to “downzon- ing in disguise”. The SUN concerns about height did not address parking because they were aware of the affect increasing the parking requirements would have on meaningful multi-family development in the area next to the University where thousands of students wanted to live in quality housing. In recent years, some of the eyesores in the WUN and the corridor had come down and been replaced with high quality housing projects. He displayed photographs of his recently completed Coho project, that contained many th sustainability features on 14 Avenue between Hilyard Street and Patterson Street for which he had received accolades from the City of Eugene and the University of Oregon School of Architecture and Allied Arts. In order to do this project with the proposed increased parking requirements it would be necessary to MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 9 Work Session have 23 parking spaces for which there was insufficient room on the standard city lot on which the project was built. Dale Deason, 1527 Charnelton Street, said the issue was not one of density and sprawl. The need to increase the population in the city core had been recognized and accepted for many years by the community and the neighbors. The question was not whether but how to densify, and managing the process was an issue. Changes in the code that relaxed requirements had resulted a doubling of allowable density in his neighborhood in 20 years. He was concerned this had been done in bits and pieces over time rather than through careful planning with almost no involvement by neighborhood residents and no one thinking of unintended consequences or how to avoid turning a thriving neighborhood into a slum. The City had targeted his neighborhood for radical transformation. All but one house on his block was single family but this would change with the City’s goal of doubling the population over the next 20 years. The outcomes would not be good if done with care and involvement by the residents. This was not an urban renewal project in which everything was torn down and you start over. The neighborhoods were full of middle class families who took care of their property and patronized local businesses. They were great places to live and were thriving. The proposed code amendments were from the grass roots and were not radical. They added balance to the process. He urged the Council not to follow the notion that the issue was density versus sprawl. The issue was how to do densification right and by approving the amendments the Council 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 MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 10 Work Session 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. Jozef Siekiel-Zdzienicki, 1025 Taylor, Ward 1, was a renter. He said the City’s method of determining building height by measuring from halfway up the roofline did not make sense. Lack of provisions for buffer zones with no transition in residential areas was short-sighted. Although underground parking was expensive, it was an option. He urged the City Council to pass the MICAP amendments. Pauline Hutson, 1025 Taylor, lived in a small infill house. Her family had a modest income and the availability of affordable housing in safe, attractive neighborhoods was important to them. Eugene had a limited number of affordable small homes for rent or purchase, particularly in neighborhoods where people with modest incomes wanted to live rather than were forced to live. The Jefferson and Westside neighbor- hoods had affordable, appealing housing with friendly neighbors that was within walking distance to stores, restaurants and the library. It was important that the character and stability of the established neighbor- hoods not be degraded by the “human warehouse” apartments that were being jammed in alleys and back yards by developers with no concern for the community. The HPB chair did not speak for her when opposing the proposed MCAs to help prevent degradation of her neighborhood and community. She asked the City Council to approve the amendments that would help protect Eugene’s neighborhoods. Ed McMahon, 1233 Hilo Drive, Executive Director of the HBA said the Planning Commission had recommended that Amendments 5 and 7 be forwarded to the ICS and the HPB had agreed with the Commission. He expressed concerns about Amendments 3, 8, 9, and 11. He encouraged the Council to forward Amendments 5, 7 and 8 to the ICS for more citizen involvement, adding that to do otherwise would be in direct conflict with GMPs 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11. A workable compromise existed supported by the feeling that everyone loved the community. He asked that the Council allow the necessary dialogue to take place and thanked it for its commitment to the community. Rob Handy, 455½ River Road, past co-chair of the NLC, had met with representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, the HBA, Friends of Eugene, City staff and consultants, to develop a process for the MCA MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 11 Work Session process. The twelve proposed amendments had been unanimously endorsed by the NLC and the ICS. It was important to grow in a way that the community could see the vitality in the core of the neighborhoods. He supported Amendment 8, RR/SC stormwater issues, and asked that it be moved forward. Jim Torrey, 3393 Arlington Avenue, Ward 4, was not surprised by the conflict seen tonight. He asked the Council to reconsider the recommendation of the committee that was appointed four years ago to review the land use code on an annual basis. If the Council had done that, many of the issues raised tonight could have been brought to the Council earlier, before the conflict position was reached. He was convinced that most people had no idea of what was involved in the land use code until it impacted them and their neighborhood. The predictability of the code was key. If the Council wanted to earn the trust of the people, it needed to be able to give them an opportunity to bring issues to the Council when they learned it had an impact on them, their neighborhood or as an industry. He urged the City Council to reconsider the recommendation of a broad-based group of people. He noted that group had to agree by 75 percent before they brought issues to the Council. He strongly urged the Council to consider the need to review the code every year. th Deborah Healey, 360 East 15 Avenue, Chair of WUNA, Ward 3, said the WUN was the most densely populated neighborhood in Eugene, had a lot of experience with infill of various kinds and had actively participated in the MICAP process during the last 18 months. During the last few years, there had been a dramatic increase from one and two-bedroom units to four to six-bedroom units, with an average of 3.5 bedrooms and 200 bedrooms built or proposed in 2007. To date in 2008, 135 bedrooms were proposed or under construction, and well on track to exceed the 2007 figures. The neighborhood had a high student population, with 3,000 of the 5,500 residents in the 20-24 year old range. Six or seven of the nine WUNA Board members were renters because less than two percent of the residents were owner-occupiers. Most of the residents in the 20-24 age group were not families with children, but individuals, each of whom could have a car. Parking was not needed for every person in the apartments, but it was time to make a change. th Rene Kane , 254 West 14 Avenue, recently attended a City sponsored conference on Smart Growth. The expert speakers talked about how cities could be responsive to environmental, social, and economic issues when considering where and how to grow. She noted the conference had been attended by local elected officials and staff, building and design professionals, and neighborhood representatives. Qualities being incorporated into Smart Growth communities already existed in her neighborhood and other close-in neighborhoods such as Whiteaker, SUN and WUN. The neighborhoods were walkable, dense and diverse, with a good balance of open space and structures, both private and public, residential and commercial uses. There were eyes on the street and ample street tree canopies, the neighborhoods were pedestrian in scale while accommodating cars and bicycles. MICAP had been an involved community dialogue. She encouraged the Council to adopt the proposed twelve code amendments. th Steve Baker, 360 East 15 Avenue, Ward 3, said lack of onsite parking had been a serious problem in WUN since the 1970’s. Based upon the latest Harris Poll, 72 percent of students at the University had vehicles at college, most of which were covered by the Residential Parking Program due to the parking shortage. In 2007, 860 residential parking permits and 50 commuter parking permits were issued. WUNA proposed code amendments in 2006 that were fully supported by MICAP to deal with a few new projects being built with three to six bedrooms and minimal parking. The proposal was approved unanimously by ICS. The staff proposal submitted to the Planning Commission was more restrictive than the WUNA proposal, and the Commission decided against changing the code amendments. WUNA strongly urged the MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 12 Work Session City Council approve the amendment originally submitted to the Planning Commission. He recently completed a detailed analysis of the 26 of the most recent multi-family infill projects. Over 80 percent of the projects met or exceeded the parking proposals submitted to the Council and contrary to some testimony tonight, the projects with adequate parking had a greater density, of 55 units per acre, compared to the projects with a density of 38 units per acres, which had inadequate parking. Additionally, the two highest density projects in the R-4 zone in the neighborhood exceeded the WUNA code proposal by 18 to 42 percent, and were close to the maximum allowable density in the R-4 zone, or above 100 units per acre. He asserted that the WUNA parking proposals did not affect the allowable density. Residents spent a lot of time looking for parking which was not sustainable. th Charles Snyder, 990 West 12 Avenue, Ward 1, said the MICAP process had resulted in a set of proposed code amendments that would help reverse the erosion of Eugene’s residential neighborhoods. The amendments, unanimously endorsed by the NLC, reflected the input of many people in Eugene who represented civic, professional, industry and neighborhood organizations. As a community, Eugene had decided to limit urban sprawl and determined to accommodate growth within the UGB, although how to do that had not been accomplished. The Opportunity Siting program was a joint effort between the City and the neighborhoods which applied an urban strategy to accommodate growth while preserving the livability of existing neighborhoods. It was not necessary to destroy neighborhoods to contain sprawl. The types of homes built should be initiated by the people who would live there. It was unfair and unwise to suggest that compassionate treatment of the disadvantaged was in conflict with people’s desire for livable neighborhoods. Eugene’s neighborhoods were home to people who generously donated time and resources to the City’s helping organizations. The leaders of those organizations were ill-served by disparaging their supporters’ desire to be comfortable in their homes. He urged the City Council to approve proposed MICAP Amendments 3-12, 14, and 17. Michael Webb, 1492 Washington Street, supported adoption of the MCAs. This would affect the HBA but there would still be plenty of business opportunities available. Marilyn Mohr, 1085 North Park Avenue, was a Lane County resident, member of the River Road Community Organization (RRCO) Board and member of the ICS. She supported the twelve proposed amendments, including Amendments 5, 7, and 8. Neighborhood volunteers who proposed the amendments had thoroughly considered the impacts and had responded to concerns from the Planning Commission, the HBA, and the HPB. In the findings included in the AIS for this meeting, although some of the amendments addressed residential standards, the land use code amendments did not compact the supply or availability of residential lands. The sustainable neighborhood amendments were supported by the NLC and unanimously endorsed by ICS. She hoped the City’s stated goals of allowing growth while maintaining the character and livability of neighborhoods would prove to be a priority. th Carol DeFazio, 1437 West 10 Avenue, had submitted written testimony via e-mail. She supported the MCAs and urged the City Council to consider them carefully and adopt them. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing and the public record on the matter before the City Council. She thanked everyone who attended the hearing. The Council was scheduled to take action on July 14, 2008. Councilor Clark thanked everyone who came to the hearing. He had several questions that he would submit to staff via e-mail for response prior to the City Council making a decision. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 13 Work Session 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Downtown Code Amendments Mayor Piercy opened the public hearing on the Downtown Code Amendments. She explained the process for conducting a public hearing. She said speakers would be limited to three minutes each and asked that City of Eugene residents identify which ward they lived in. John Brown, 101 East Broadway, Ward 5, was speaking on his own behalf, and not on behalf of any board or commission of which he may be a member. He distributed photographs of property at 260 West th 10 Avenue, consisting of commercial space on the ground floor and housing on the second floor, which had been the subject of a Ballot Measure 37 claim brought against the City for a density variance in the 1.0 Floor Area Ration (FAR). The development was not financially feasible with the code required density. If the Measure 37 claim procedure had not been available and had gone back through the entire code, he would not have had to comply with stormwater standards and some other development design standards that had been included in the project. If the variance had not been granted, the site could have been sold to neighbors who wanted the site for a parking lot. He asked the Council to listen to local people, consider financial feasibility and understand that sometimes it was necessary to subsidize development downtown. The Council could not legislate financial feasibility unless it was willing to subsidize it as it had done in the past. It was important to listen to the people who lived in the community and wanted to do development “right”. Terry Connolly, 1401 Willamette Street, on behalf of the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, supported the proposed Downtown Code Amendments and urged the City Council to approve them as recommended by the Planning Commission. Individually and collectively each of the proposed code amendments would remove some of the barriers that were in the way of attracting new investment, new projects, and more employers in downtown Eugene, and was especially true for local businesses that may wish to invest in downtown. The proposed code amendments were a step in the right direction for the City Council to achieve an economic vital downtown featuring a diverse mix of uses as envisioned in the Downtown Plan. Current code requirements such as the 1.0 FAR and 20 space parking maximum may have been well intentioned when first enacted but they have had unintended consequences as evidenced by seven years of very little private sector development activity in downtown compared to the development activity going on elsewhere in the community. The proposed code amendments were more in line with the basic economic and market conditions and/or limitations for a city the size of Eugene. Allowing adjustment review for all parcels was a good thing. This was not the first time a Eugene Planning Commission had recommended .65 FAR as being appropriate for the overlay zone. It should be noted that .65 FAR was precisely what the Planning Commission recommended eight years ago when it forwarded the Land Use Code Update (LUCU) to the City Council. This was an important opportunity for the City Council. The Chamber of Commerce urged the Council to approve the Downtown Code Amendments. He thanked the City Council and Planning staff for their work and public involvement opportunities provided through the process. Lisa Warnes, 5020 Nectar Way, Ward 2, said there was an implementation strategy in the Downtown Plan that said, “in order to identify impediments for achieving higher density in mixed use development and redevelopment downtown a regulatory audit is necessary.” The Plan further said, “perform a regulatory MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 14 Work Session audit to identify impediments to achieving higher density, mixed use development and redevelopment downtown.” She was unaware of any audit in forming the proposed amendments. The process should be audit first, identification of impediments, and then development of a proposal based on audit findings. Staff findings stated “the proposed code amendments assist private developers to invest downtown by removing impediments in the land use code.” She said the statement was not supported by facts and the record provided no data based on information establishing what the impediments were. The findings failed to address the applicable TransPlan related Metro Plan nodal development policies. She urged the City Council to reject all Downtown Code Amendments until the proposed Chapter 9 amendments to encourage downtown development were based on factual information. Gary Wildish, 2424 Quince Street, supported a vibrant, active downtown. Not much had happened in downtown during the last seven years as most people would have wished. He suggested verifying how many dollars of permitted work had been allowed in the downtown area and comparing it with the amount of commercial development that had occurred outside of the downtown area. He opined everyone would be disappointed in the significance of development going other places, such as Coburg Road and Delta Highway. He encouraged the Council to support the Planning Commission and staff recommendations. Bruce Mulligan, 3056 Hendricks Hill Drive, Ward 3, supported the Planning Commission’s recommenda- tions for the MCAs, which was one of a two stage process. He said the proposed .65 FAR change would increase actual FARs in the area which were currently approximately .25 FAR. He had been briefly th involved with the WestTown on 8 project which had received a waiver from the City Council for development purposes. That low-income housing project would meet .65 FAR and was an asset to the community. It was necessary to create an easy way for people to invest in Eugene in great projects. The changes recommended by the Planning Commission would enhance the capability of Eugene to attract those dollars and see the projects we want to see happen. Some of the lowest land values in the community were in the downtown core, whereas they should be some of the highest values. He supported the Planning Commission recommendations and looked forward to the recommendations that would come from the second stage of the land use code changes evaluation process Kevin Matthews, P.O. Box 1588, President, Friends of Eugene, cited several State of Oregon legislative bills regarding greenhouse gas emissions and local sustainability issues, and how they related to downtown. The DLCD sent the City of Eugene a letter regarding reducing downtown density. Construction in downtown reduced vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the metropolitan area, while construction in the perimeter of the UGB increased VMT. He suggested the City Council should ask staff for documentation of how building permits changed when the land use code was changed and do the regulatory audit called for in the Downtown Plan. Dan Montgomery, 66 Club Road, Ward 5, said in the most active real estate market in this area ever, very few if any new private buildings had been built in the Transit District Overlay (/TD) area. Adjustments needed to be made and for that reason he supported all of the proposed Downtown Code Amendments before the City Council. He recalled the amendments were included in the staff recommendation on code changes eight years ago. The current parking maximum of 20 spaces was not workable and an adjustment review process needed to be available for all properties within the /TD overlay zone. The current code had been a failure and had forced development to go to suburban areas and Springfield, causing more use of more fuels and more emissions. Approving the Downtown Code Amendments would be a step in the right direction. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 15 Work Session Will Shaver, 3846 Peppertree, Ward 8, spoke in favor of the Downtown Code Amendments on his own behalf, and not on behalf of the Sustainability Commission. He understood the dilemma brought forward by Mr. Matthews wanting to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses while promoting density, which were values agreed on by many in the community. The past seven years had been very lean years from a downtown development perspective. He proposed a new slogan for downtown, Downtown Eugene: Please Drive Somewhere Else, which was what had happened. Development had occurred in the new downtown Eugene on Coburg Road, and in the new Eugene in Springfield, and all around the borders that caused people like Mr. Shaver to have to drive farther or ride his bike a ridiculous distance to procure goods and services. The current 1.0 FAR had been ineffective in accomplishing the community’s goal of reducing parking, based upon the pits and lack of building downtown. To reach the high density everyone sought, there needed to be incremental changes. Parking spaces did not create revenue but allowed people to do business. Eventually, as land values and density increased, parking spaces would be eliminated. In other downtowns with high land values, parking was inefficient use of the land. Lauri Segel, 642 Charnelton, Goal One Coalition, said the plan did not have a factual basis and she felt the policies relied on were the wrong policies to be looking at and the right policies were not looked at. The Downtown Plan should be predicated on other policies and Strategy F of the Downtown Plan related to regulatory audits had not been followed. The proposal was based on non-quantitative information that development did not pan out downtown. Going backwards and ignoring nodal development policies and DLCD direction did not make sense. The TransPlan and Metro Plan had barely been touched on, and adequate analysis had not been performed. She submitted written testimony for inclusion in the public record. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Ms. Jerome said there was a written request to keep the public record open through June 30, and staff had recommended this would work with the City Council’s timeline. Mayor Piercy noted consensus of the City Council to keep the public record open until June 30, 2008. Councilor Poling noted six of the seven speakers who provided testimony to the Planning Commission about increasing the number of allowable dogs to provide temporary housing for foster dogs were not City residents. He asked for clarification on what change in the amendment meant for the number of allowable dogs within the City limits. Councilor Bettman asked staff to respond to the quantitative TransPlan nodal requirements and reduction in VMTs. She said housing was the key to redeveloping downtown and she wanted to see numbers. She heard that rents were high downtown in comparison to other parts of the City and overall the property values were brought down downtown by the west Broadway area because the much of the property was owned by one entity that allowed the property to deteriorate for many years thus bringing down the values. She asked to see a copy of the letter from DLCD referenced by several speakers tonight. Councilor Clark had previously asked for the list of properties redeveloped the last seven years. He concurred that much of downtown development was actually redevelopment. He asked for a comparison of permitted dollars for both developed and redeveloped properties both in downtown and outside of MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 16 Work Session downtown. He also asked for a comparison of relative land values in downtown Eugene compared to the land values in downtown of other Oregon cities of comparable size, and versus similar types of develop- ment in other parts of Eugene. Mayor Piercy commented when comparing development downtown it was difficult to go back more than seven years. She cited stores leaving downtown for the malls, the covered downtown mall, urban renewal and other experiences over time, and said Eugene had been in a recovery in downtown since the 1970’s. It was looking more positive now than in a low time, with the construction of the Tate Building, WestTown th on 8, reopening of streets, and renovation of the Center Court building. Councilor Bettman asked for a description of the viability created by the proposed code changes for demolition of existing buildings and somebody putting in a paid surface parking lot. The area in question was the transit oriented area of downtown. How much housing could be built? She asked for information from staff on the regulatory audit. Councilor Clark asked staff to provide information on the FAR in current buildings and what the FAR would change to under the proposed .65 FAR. Councilor Zelenka asked to see the DLCD letter and the original parking amendment proposed by WUN. He also asked for clarification on a statement made by Rob Handy that ICS unanimously supported all of the proposed amendments. Mayor Piercy thanked City Councilors and members of the public for their participation in tonight’s public hearing. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 17 Work Session