Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/12/05 WS M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall October 12, 2005 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Bonny Bettman, David Kelly, Betty Taylor, Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Gary Papé. In the absence of Mayor Kitty Piercy, Council President George Poling called the October 12, 2005, work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. WORK SESSION: ORDINANCE CONCERNING CHAMBERS SPECIAL AREA ZONE Senior Planner Allen Lowe of the Planning Division provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Chambers Reconsidered,” which summarized the Chambers Reconsidered Project, a project to implement the mixed- use concept in the neighborhood. He shared a series of aerial photographs to demonstrate the boundaries of the study area and changes in the area over time, including examples of higher density infill developments that occurred and created neighborhood resistance to such developments. Mr. Lowe reviewed the history of the project, noting it began in fall 2004 with an exploration of issues and values. Participants identified variables that could be manipulated to influence neighborhood character. The process resulted in development standards intended to ensure a higher degree of compatibility with existing development. Mr. Lowe shared slides showing the area impacted by the draft zoning code, noting not all parts of the neighborhood would be affected by the new standards. He pointed out the area known as the East Traditional Neighborhood (ETN), the area of most concern to the members of the Chambers Area Families for Healthy Neighborhoods (CAFHN). The development standards would be applied to the ETN. Mr. Lowe said the aim of the project was to allow an existing developed neighborhood to intensify while preserving its essential character. Defining characteristics of the neighborhood included the grid street system, alleys, and the patterns of the sidewalks, as well as the lot sizes, building forms, and relationship of the buildings to the street. The draft code was structured around those characteristics. Mr. Lowe said as the process went on, participants realized the allowed levels of density in the R-2 zone predisposed the area to wholesale redevelopment as opposed to selective infill. Much of the study area was designated for medium-density development, which also encouraged higher densities and attached multi- family dwellings. However, the neighborhood current consisted largely of detached dwellings. Mr. Lowe said the process considered building form, lot area, width, and depth, density, building height, and side yard setbacks. He said process also considered neighborhood character, such as front yard setback, roof pitch, MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 1 Work Session street façade, entry location, garage door width and height, driveway width and location, and factors related to the character of alleys. Mr. Lowe said the project engaged participants in a central policy issue: that of the transition of a neighborhood from one thing to another thing. At what density levels was a neighborhood, defined in part by its existing single-family detached housing patterns, transformed into a neighborhood in which multi- family attached housing dominated? The project was about how to implement Growth Management Study (GMS) Policy 6, which states the City shall increase the density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. Mr. Lowe pointed out the R-2 zone allowed up to 28 units per acre. The density standard proposed for the R-2 zoned area was 15 units per acre, which was determined to be compatible with the existing neighborhood as it constituted the carrying capacity for a primarily detached housing model in this specific twelve-block area. Mr. Lowe reviewed the proposed density standard, which was one unit on lots less than or equal to 4,500 square feet, two units on lots between 4,500 and 9,200 square feet, and three units on lots greater than 9,200 square feet. He shared examples of the effects of those limits. He also noted the standards related to side yard setback, height, front yard setback, garages and driveways, alley front yards, and alley open spaces, and shared examples of the impacts of those standards. Mr. Lowe briefly noted compatibility standards regarding height and façade as they related to commercial development. He called attention to proposed intersection improvements and said information about them was contained in the meeting packet. Mr. Lowe said the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the proposed code amendments and transportation improvements. Mr. Poling solicited comments and questions from the council. Ms. Taylor congratulated the residents of the neighborhood for the excellent job they did in developing the standards. She hoped the standards could be applied to other areas of the community. She asked if parking in a front yard was currently permitted. Mr. Lowe said front-yard parking was not only allowed, but permitted. Most contemporary residential structures have their parking in driveways located in the front yard. Ms. Taylor asked if an entire front yard could be converted to concrete. Mr. Lowe was unaware of any prohibition to that. Ms. Taylor suggested the council address that issue. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation for the neighborhood involvement in the project and said he was impressed with the thoroughness of the effort. He also thanked staff and the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly said he was considering the citywide implications of the project. He suggested the standards could be considered as a precedent for other neighborhoods by some residents. Mr. Kelly asked if the development standards, in the absence of a simultaneous opportunity siting study and some density allocation for the neighborhood, represented half a loaf. He noted the Planning Commission’s split vote on the issue because of two commissioners’ interest in some opportunity siting to determine where density could go. Mr. Lowe said he would, in general, agree it would be half a loaf, but in this case he did not agree. The City had identified opportunity siting in a previous planning project in 1999 and accommodated the reduction in density for the R-2 zone. He said that the matter was contextual, and he thought opportunity siting should be done with in conjunction with any reduction in zoning or anticipated density. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Kelly noted his long-time support for neighborhood refinement plans. He said the proposal before the council seemed very different from a refinement plan. He could think of no plan other the Whiteaker Plan that resembled the proposal. He questioned whether the City was more or less likely to achieve its GMS policies related to mixed-use development if this process and outcome repeated itself for other neighbor- hoods. Mr. Lowe did not know if he could make a blanket statement about the issue or draw any conclu- sions. He noted the policy issues raised by staff in May 2005. Staff still believed those issues needed to be addressed to implement the GMS policies related to maintenance of the existing character of neighborhoods. He said the community had expressed its intention, through the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), to change the character of the neighborhood from one thing to another. That was where the conflict arose, and where the big policy questions lie. Ms. Bettman said she also wondered whether the staff and neighborhood addressed the issue of opportunity siting. She recalled that in 1999, a group comprised of representatives of the Friends of Eugene, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Leaders Council, and the Lane County Homebuilders Association worked to redesign the Chambers Node and recommended downzoning on the residential sites and recommended that density be achieved by using underused industrial sites to create mixed-use development that included housing. She hoped neighborhood representatives would speak to that issue during the public hearing. Ms. Bettman would have liked to have seen the process culminate in the identification of opportunities to create that density. Ms. Bettman noted the analysis resulted in an inventory of what was available in the neighborhood, also known as asset mapping. That generally preceded opportunity siting. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of the potential application of the standards citywide, saying the process went well for this neighborhood but other neighborhoods might be at a disadvantage due to the expertise that had been available to the neighborhood and its ability to participate. She was concerned about making the project a prototype. She suggested that in the future, there would be pressure on the City to provide more education and tools to neighborhoods to allow them to participate at an equal level. Ms. Bettman asked about the Ballot Measure 37 implications of the project. Mr. Lowe said staff did not do a fair market analysis so he could not answer the question. City Attorney Emily Jerome agreed. She said she perceived nothing in the proposal that implied a Ballot Measure 37 claim. She said she had not reviewed the proposal to see if anything in it added value to a property. Ms. Bettman asked how staff foresaw the issue of commercial development being addressed. Mr. Lowe reminded the council that the process was very much citizen-driven. Staff had gone to the neighborhood with the visual preference survey to elicit specific concerns about compatibility. Almost all the issues raised by area residents related to infill and redevelopment in the R-2 zone. Residents offered very little comment on the issue of commercial development. For that reason, there were limited provisions related to commer- cial development in the proposal. They were generally related to compatibility issues raised by the neighbors. Many other issues had been left on the table, and there were no further plans to address them at this time. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly noted that much national research indicated the problem with density was its appearance. He asked if staff believed a design review approach was preferable to a process quantified by hard numbers. Mr. Lowe said a design review approach could be useful. He noted that a consultant recommended a design MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 3 Work Session review process, but that recommendation was not brought forward by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kelly asked the council to consider further discussion on the topic of a design review process with the potential for general application across the community. Mr. Kelly said if the project was implemented at the same time as an opportunity siting study, the City might find opportunities to significantly increase density across the area. Because that had not occurred, he was nervous about the very major changes being proposed. Mr. Lowe said the scale of the development and the fact it worked over a twelve-block area reduced staff’s nervousness about the impacts of the proposal. If the area was larger, staff would be more concerned. Mr. Kelly reiterated his concern that the project would be a model for other neighborhoods. Ms. Bettman suggested the density that was identified for the area originally was not necessarily in the best interests of the neighborhood or the city. She said the City needed to be careful about how redevelopment occurred in urban core neighborhoods or residents would begin to leave them for areas outside the urban growth boundary. She thought what was being proposed was modest with regard to preserving the livability of the neighborhood and stabilizing its population. She looked forward to the next step, opportunity siting. Referring to Section 9.3065(2)(a)(3), which stipulated that the original lot prior to creation of a flag lot was not subject to the minimum R-1 lot size, Ms. Bettman asked if that meant the primary lot could be any size at all. City Planner Gabe Flock clarified that the section removed an existing code standard that called for the original lot to have a minimum size of 13,000 square feet prior to the land division. The minimum lot size for single dwellings and attached secondary dwellings would be 4,500 square feet. Ms. Bettman confirmed with staff that the original lot must be at least 9,000 square feet. She did not think that was clear in the text she reviewed. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Mr. Lowe said that the definition of open space could be found in the code. Ms. Bettman suggested that open space could take the form of concrete. Mr. Lowe said the CAFHN thought the definition of open space in the code to be misleading and it was a major issue in the process. Mr. Nystrom said that open space could be something other than lawn, like hardscape. There were dimensional requirements to ensure the space was usable. Ms. Bettman indicated that was an issue for her. Ms. Taylor believed the project served to protect an established neighborhood and assisted with another council goal, that of encouraging people to live in the central part of the city. Mr. Poling solicited a third round of questions and comments. Mr. Kelly agreed about the need to protect established neighborhoods, but he did not think that meant there would be no change in those neighborhoods. He agreed with Ms. Bettman that the existing density in the neighborhood might not be appropriate, but he questioned how the council could address the neighborhood’s specific issues while keeping in mind the citywide implications of the project. Mr. Kelly noted Mr. Lowe’s request to the Planning Commission, reflected in the minutes of September 26, to refrain from establishing the project as a pattern for other neighborhoods without considering what was really broken, which was the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts. He asked how an examination of those districts could be made to occur soon, and questioned the relationship of that exercise to opportunity siting. Mr. Lowe said staff was anxious to address those elements of the code it believed were structurally unsound, but it was a work load issue. Ms. Muir said that the issue was also tied to the minor land use code amendments. She suggested the council could reprioritize the work plan to address the issue. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Kelly reiterated he was nervous about moving forward aggressively to deal with smaller areas such as the neighborhood in question until the council had addressed the same issues citywide. Mr. Kelly expressed enthusiasm for the design standards and suggested they would be appropriate for most other older Eugene neighborhoods. Mr. Lowe said the standards were crafted specifically by the residents for the neighborhood in question and might or might not work other places. He believed that the code could be written in a way that allowed the standards to be applied on a neighborhood basis, but it was a considerable work item and there was an immense amount of work that had been done by the neighbors that made the standards possible. To the extent other neighborhoods could do the necessary work, staff could structure follow-up projects to accommodate that effort. He shared Ms. Bettman’s concern that other neighborhoods would lack the expertise needed for such an effort. Ms. Muir added that staff had learned some lessons from the process and believed one-size fits all approaches did not work. She said that working with the residents and asking specific questions of them had been very important. She emphasized the importance of buy in and participation from the residents. Ms. Bettman did not think the design standards were at all stringent and considered them a compromise in many cases that would still result in increased density. She spoke to the issue of the division’s work load, recalling a past presentation from Peter Wilcox describing a Portland model that involved a high level of neighborhood participation and which resulted in booklet of voluntary standards for new development. Developers realized that if they built to the standards, they eliminated neighborhood resistance. She said that Portland eventually incorporated some of the standards into its code. She suggested a similar approach could be used in Eugene if the right people could be found to participate. Ms. Bettman asked about the definition of “vehicle use area.” Mr. Lowe said it was generally used to refer to a paved area used by automobiles. Ms. Bettman asked if paved open space areas could be used for vehicle parking. Mr. Flock did not think so. Ms. Bettman requested additional information prior to the public hearing about maximum paved areas. Ms. Bettman reminded the council that the process was predicated on the State’s requirements to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) within a certain period, leading to the mixed-use approach. This was one of the mixed-use centers. She perceived the task as being only partly done if the City had addressed only the residential development issues in the area. She asked if the council needed to pass a motion to direct staff to engage the residents in a discussion of commercial issues and to do an opportunity siting study. Mr. Lowe said that would be useful as staff had no direction or funding to proceed. Ms. Muir suggested that the council could discuss the issue during its review of the Planning Division’s work plan. Ms. Bettman was concerned about the timing of that process, which did not occur until mid-year. Mr. Poling called for a fourth round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly said the lot aggregation prohibition prevented the combining of two or more lots into a single lot. He asked the impact of that as it seemed dramatic to him, and suggested that such a prohibition assumed the current lot layout was ideal. Mr. Lowe said the prohibition was in recognition that the existing lot layout was part of the character of the neighborhood that the City was trying to be maintained. He thought the effect would be developer inflexibility, and it would tend to lock in the pattern of development that existed in the neighborhood now. Mr. Kelly suggested one way to accomplish increased density was through row housing. He asked if the project made row housing at an appropriate density more difficult. Mr. Lowe said yes, reminding Mr. Kelly MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 5 Work Session that the proposal was predicated on the maintenance of the existing detached housing in the neighborhood and was intended to limit apartment units, row houses, and other attached units. Mr. Kelly asked why there were development standards for some R-2 areas of the neighborhood but not for others. Mr. Lowe said the R-2 areas being affected had a cohesive character that other R-2 areas did not. Mr. Kelly asked if residents outside the affected area raised an objection to not having the standards. Mr. Lowe said no. Mr. Kelly asked if there was a change in the base zoning for any parcels in the affected area. Mr. Lowe said no. Mr. Kelly asked how and when the transportation improvements get funded and constructed. Mr. Lowe said he would have to return to the council with that information. Ms. Bettman suggested that there were areas in the node ripe for redevelopment where row houses would be appropriate. She thought that would be indicated by an opportunity siting study. In regard to the issue of whether the plan for the mixed-use center was done, she did not think so. She did not want to lose the momentum created by the efforts of the neighbors. Mr. Lowe noted that the mixed-use center at this location was one of 38 areas with identified mixed-use potential. City staff had gone to the neighborhood three times attempting to work out the issues that existed to implement a plan for the mixed-use center. That effort was blocked by the neighborhood’s opposition to infill redevelopment. The project attempted to remove the barrier of neighborhood opposition to new development by instituting standards to ensure compatible development. He believed that the City could move forward with other ideas that arose in the 1999 plan and address those. Ms. Muir said that staff heard the message being conveyed, and would attempt to scope the effort for further work prior to the public hearing scheduled on November 14. Ms. Taylor thought the project was one step toward a successful mixed-use area and the council should not lose the work that was before it. Other work could be done later. Mr. Poling thanked area residents, the Planning Commission, and staff for their work on the project. B. WORK SESSION: Minor Land Use Code Amendments The council was joined for the item by Planning and Development Director Susan Muir and Senior Planner Steve Nystrom. City Manager Taylor noted that the recommendations before the council had been reviewed and forwarded by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nystrom said that the amendments before the council constituted the first of two phases of amendments the council would see. He termed the amendments “minor fixes” of the code. A public hearing was scheduled for October 24, with deliberation to follow in November. He recalled that in the Land Use Code Update process it was recognized that the code was not a static document and over time revisions would be made to the document as issues arose and opportunities for efficiencies were found. Mr. Nystrom said that staff had been tracking issues that arose over time and found most were fairly minor in nature. Those that were more significant were not being considered today but would be addressed in Phase 2 of the process, in addition to issues raised by the general public. Mr. Nystrom said the present phase of the project was centered on gaps in the code and ambiguous and/or conflicting code language and not on major policy concerns. He acknowledged that was somewhat subjective, and for that reason staff worked with the Planning Commission to identify those amendments the MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 6 Work Session commission believed were minor in nature. That resulted in some amendments being dropped from consideration. Staff was present to ask the council to do a similar review in regard to the scope of the proposed amendments. Mr. Nystrom called the council’s attention to a synopsis of the amendments. Mr. Poling called for a first round of comments and questions. Ms. Taylor did not think the code amendments represented housekeeping and did not think the council had adequate time for review of the amendments. She referred to item 8 and asked why staff proposed to allow RV sales in a C-2 zone as a permitted use. Mr. Nystrom said that currently, such uses required a conditional use permit (CUP). All other auto-related uses such as auto sales, motorcycle sales, and gasoline stations were uses permitted outright. Staff believed that treating auto-related uses similarly made sense. In addition, an RV use had recently gone through the CUP process, and staff found it was a difficult process to match to the request. Ms. Taylor suggested that all auto-related uses should require a CUP. Ms. Taylor referred to item 25 and asked why staff recommended that special standards for duplexes, triplexes, and four-plexes would apply to R-1 zones. Mr. Nystrom noted that the section had been in place for many years prior to the Land Use Code Update. It was an opportunity to allow for a mixture of housing types in R-1 neighborhoods in larger projects. The uses were already outright uses in the other residential zones, assuming one could meet density requirements and other standards. The amendment attempted to make it clear that the code section addressed R-1 zoning and that a developer could use the lot for a single- family house. Ms. Taylor referred to item 26 and asked why staff proposed to eliminate the screening for flag lots. Mr. Nystrom recalled that amendments adopted through the Land Use Code Update eliminated the requirement, which remained in the purpose statement, had no effect, and could be confusing to the reader. Ms. Taylor thought the City should have such a screening requirement. Ms. Taylor referred to item 61 and averred it was not a good idea to allow a landscape architect rather than an arborist to provide a tree report. Mr. Nystrom suggested that the issue was situational depending on the project. Staff was attempting to allow some flexibility. Staff would still encourage arborists to be involved in complex projects in the south hills, for example. Ms. Taylor recalled that the Lane County Home Builders supported the change, and she did not think it was a good idea. Ms. Taylor referred to item 68 and asked why the City would require reports for transportation demand management (TDM) plans that requested adjustments to maximum parking requirements. Mr. Nystrom said that the section gave the City more authority to require such reports. He clarified that there were two adjustments a developer could seek, one for minimum parking and one for maximum parking. There was no requirement for an annual report to allow the City to track the exceptions. Also referring to item 61, Mr. Kelly said he liked how staff interpreted the section said, but he did not think it was reflected in the code language. He would prefer it if staff was specific about what projects required an arborist. Mr. Kelly noted that the council processed at least two packages of minor code amendments following the adoption of the Land Use Code. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Kelly requested a copy of the minutes where the Planning Commission adopted the recommendations before the council for inclusion in the October 24 meeting packet. Mr. Kelly referred to item 32, which would add a provision to the code clarifying the prohibition on home occupations in flag lots, and suggested that for the purpose of encouraging compact urban development and minimizing vehicle miles traveled, the City should be doing everything it could to encourage low-impact home occupations. Ms. Bettman said the code needed to be written in a manner that allowed people to understand the impact of the code section on their property or neighborhood. She suggested that staff look to the rationale it developed for each code amendment, which was generally in clear language, as a model. Ms. Bettman believed that the council was being asked to roll back some of the changes it adopted through the Land Use Code Update, and people did not understand the implications of what was being proposed. She said that needed to be fixed. Ms. Bettman said the purpose of the code was to create predictability and regulate uses and buildings in a way that protected public health and safety. The City also needed to implement certain local and State policies related to transportation goals and to create an environment that was cost-effective and efficient for service delivery. She perceived some of the changes as being minor but believed others constituted a slow erosion of the built environment. It seemed like the staff objective was to streamline the process, and make it easier and more permissive. While it was important that developers had easy-to-understand, reasonable code provisions, the element of the code related to the protection of people and neighborhoods, preservation of the existing character of the city, and the provision of cost-effective services was lost. Mr. Poling solicited a second round of comments and questions. Mr. Kelly spoke to the second phase, noting the time line for that process had slipped, and requesting an update on the time line. Mr. Nystrom said staff proposed to kick-start that second phase as soon as the present phase was completed. Staff had been working with the Planning Commission on the public outreach element of that phase and preliminary planning for the process. He anticipated that staff would update the council following its work with the commission. Mr. Kelly asked when the public would be able to provide suggestions for changes. Mr. Nystrom anticipated that would occur around January 2006. Ms. Bettman noted her concern that items 24 (clarify that an exception to maximum lot size can be granted to protect natural resource) and 29 (eliminate requirement for site review for wetland restoration approved by the mitigation bank within the \WB and \WP overlay zones) were not minor in nature. She asked if the exception to the maximum lot size could be spurred by, for example, an expressed desire to preserve a tree that could be removed later. She said that it appeared the provision could decrease density in an expensive residential neighborhood. Item 29 appeared to defer decision-making about uses in the natural resource zones to the National Environmental Policy Act. Ms. Taylor referred to item 73 and asked why staff proposed to eliminate the requirement that a PUD design team must include a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Mr. Nystrom said the AICP certification was not a requirement for planning professionals. He said staff questioned what value the requirement brought to the team. He suggested the council consider how many requirements needed to be in code as opposed to included in the submittal requirements, and the effectiveness of the requirement. He said staff had not found the requirement to be an effective tool in “raising the bar” for competence among members of a development team. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 8 Work Session Ms. Muir observed that the City had two AICP planners on staff and she was one of them. She said the quality of Eugene’s staff was nonetheless high. She did not think AICP membership guaranteed a better project or proposal. Ms. Taylor was concerned because she believed staff rushed applications to approval, and the expertise of an AICP member could be valuable in slowing down the process. Ms. Taylor referred to item 80, which would revise the code to clarify that consent to a public utility easement was only required from those directly adjacent to the easement. She thought those not directly adjacent to the easement could also be affected. Mr. Nystrom said that an individual wishing to vacate a public utility easement must seek consent from anyone with direct access to or could benefit from the easement. The current code language required someone living on the other side of the property adjacent to the property in question to grant consent, even if they have no interest in the easement. The proposed code language gave such property owners notice and the ability to comment, but staff questioned if it made sense to ask them for consent when they were not served by or benefited from the easement. Mr. Poling recognized Ms. Bettman for a motion. Ms. Bettman recalled that the council adopted a motion directing staff to return with a proposal that allowed the City to capture the value from any City action, such as a rezoning, that added value to a property. That money would go to a fund that allowed the City to acquire property or compensate for reductions in value as opposed to waiving regulations in the case of a Ballot Measure 37 claim. She said the council had yet to address the subject, which she considered an overarching issue that affected the entire city, while in the meanwhile it processed such things as the minor code amendments. She thought the City was putting the cart before the horse in many ways. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to postpone council action on code, zoning, and land use changes that would likely result in increased property value, until such time that the council has considered an ordinance that enables the City to recover a portion of the increase in value bestowed on property benefiting from such action. The recaptured value will be dedicated to a fund for the sole purpose of compensating prop- erty owners with a valid Ballot Measure 37 claim in lieu of waiving regulations, and for ac- quisition of high value/priority properties in lieu of waivers due to valid Ballot Measure 37 claims. Responding to a question from Mr. Pryor, Ms. Muir said that the council would consider at least three and possibly four land use issues before it held a work session on the proposed compensation fund. Those included the Parks and Open Space Plan, the Chambers Reconsidered Project, Goal 5, and the minor code amendments. Mr. Pryor was reluctant to postpone the operations of the City while the council considered the compensation fund. He did not think the City would be doing the job its citizens expected it to do. He did not oppose the concept but was opposed to stopping all work on other land use issues. Mr. Kelly had the opposite point of view. He believed the motion was a goad to the City for further action rather than a halt to its work. He recalled that the council gave staff unanimous direction to staff to develop the ordinance in question. He suggested that part of citizens’ expectations included their expectation that the City would be able to do land use planning. He thought that, given the impact of Ballot Measure 37 on the City’s ability to do so, the council should address it first. He pointed out that the motion merely called on the council to consider the ordinance; it might find out that for practical reasons the ordinance could not be adopted. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 9 Work Session Ms. Bettman said that the City could spend a lot of money on the Planning Division but it could not enact much in a Ballot Measure 37 environment. She said the passage of the measure gave rise to the question of whether the division was needed at all. She said the motion did not stop work on other issues, but brought work on the ordinance to the forefront so the council could know if it had the compensation fund available as a tool when it moved forward with such things as natural resource protections. Ms. Bettman thought the issue needed to be addressed right away. If a person decided two months from now he wanted to upzone a property, that would have to wait until the council made a decision on the ordinance, because that was a way in which the City increased the value of a property. She said she was not saying “give us all that money back,” but rather saying the City needed to “recapture” a certain amount of the increased value to offset the City’s inability due to regulate due to passage of Ballot Measure 37. Ms. Solomon did not disagree with what Ms. Bettman was saying but did disagree with holding the rest of the council’s agenda hostage to a single ordinance. She did not support the motion. Mr. Poling asked about the timeline for enacting such an ordinance. City Manager Taylor indicated a work session was scheduled for January 2006. Mr. Poling agreed with the remarks of Mr. Pryor. He interpreted the motion as putting everything land-use related on hold. He said that residents were trying to conduct their normal lives on a daily basis, and the council would telling residents “time out” on everything related to land use actions. He did not think that was fair to the residents. He also pointed out the motion passed by the council in June directed staff to develop an ordinance, and that was already happening. There was no guarantee of the ordinance’s passage. Ms. Bettman believed her motion was being mischaracterized. She reiterated that the motion did not stop everything. The motion was very specific to situations in which upzoning or the removal of regulations would increase a property’s values. That would not stop those situations, merely postpone them. The motion elevated the priority of an ordinance establishing a compensation fund so the council had the money to pay claims rather than waive regulations. The motion “lit a fire” under staff to ensure the ordinance came forward soon. It was still up to the council to pass such an ordinance. Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to extend the meeting for three minutes. The motion passed unanimously. Speaking to Mr. Poling’s comments about residents trying to conducting their normal lives, Mr. Kelly asserted that part of people’s daily lives was having a sense they were living in a community that was planning and preserving important aspects of the community. For example, the CAFHN representatives wanted assurance of what their neighborhood would look like in the future. He pointed out that some of the provisions in the Chambers Reconsidered Project could have the effect of increasing property values, and the ordinance would present an opportunity for the City to realize some revenue in order to continue to help other neighborhoods preserve their daily lives. Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation for the comments made by other councilors, but still opposed the motion. He said that the motion was not focused on the potential liability of Ballot Measure 37, but on how to find a revenue source to address Ballot Measure 37 claims. He believed it was difficult to know whether the Parks Plan and Goal 5 inventory would improve property values but the motion would halt those efforts. He believed those were major efforts that should not be postponed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 10 Work Session Ms. Ortiz supported the motion because she felt the council needed to address the issue of a compensation fund before it completed work on the other issues cited by staff. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and Ms. Ortiz voting yes; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor voting no. The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Dennis M. Taylor City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council October 12, 2005 Page 11 Work Session