Item B: Jefferson-Westside Options for Immediate Protection

Home Browse Search

views Option 7 as a fix only until the City has adopted standards to address infill compatibility. However, the group is concerned about the time it would take for the City to take the actions under Option 7 and requests that a shorter-term action also be taken to ensure compatibility in the interim. To accomplish this, the options that seem most efficient are those described in 2 or 3, above, which utilize the City’s process for issuing code interpretations. Options 2 or 3 would utilize the Land Use Code process by which the Planning Director or the Planning Commission can issue an official interpretation of a provision of the Land Use Code EC 9.0040. Although the neighborhood group agrees that an interpretation under EC 9.0040 is its preferred option, it has not yet determined which process under EC 9.0040 would most effectively meet its needs. The neighborhood group and staff have discussed that, under options 2 and 3, there is uncertainty as to the outcome. It is possible that the neighborhood group will be dissatisfied with the interpretation that is issued. Since these options involve a land use decision, the outcome of the interpretation cannot be predetermined. In addition, options 2 and 3 may not accomplish much more than the “no action” option set out as Number 10, above. Whether or not an interpretation is issued pursuant to option 2 or 3, if the City receives an application for an upzoning in the area, the City decision-maker (Hearings Official) must issue an interpretation of the Area 15 policy of the JFW Plan as part of the decision on the application. Nevertheless, the neighborhood may see some benefit to getting the interpretation prior to submittal of future zone change applications. RELATED CITY POLICIES The city’s Growth Management Policies (1998) contain the following direction: Policy 1 Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to increase density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary more efficiently. Policy 2 Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development. Policy 4 Improve the appearance of buildings and landscapes. Policy 5 Work cooperatively with Metro area partners (Springfield and Lane County) and other nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and preserve the rural character in areas outside the urban growth boundaries. Policy 6 Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. Policy 7 Provide for a greater variety of housing types. Policy 8 Promote construction of affordable housing. Policy 9 Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill, and redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards, open space and housing maintenance programs, and continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs. L:\CMO\2006 Council Agendas\M060816\S060816B.doc