Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

For almost all parcels in the eptire"redesignated'1 area (south of Amazon), this would mean tile LDR designation and R~l zoning that "vas in effect prior to 2006 would apply, thus rendering a Measure 31 waiver meaningless. .Mr. Hinkley also asserted "it should be extremely difficult to prove. that design standards reduc.ed the value of a piece of property opening tneway for a Measure 37 claim." There is simply no legal basis for this conclusion. Measure 37 do~s not distinguish the type of regulation. A design standard, such as maximum building height, that limits what can be developed has equal legal \veighr as a maximum density " standard. "Design" vs.~'densityH is a distinction \'vithout a. difference in the c9ntext of Measure 37 claitns and should have no bearing on the decision at hand. Gro,vtb Management policies Mr. Hinkley also submitted testinlony that the proposed amendments do not comply with Eugene Growth Management policies. SOtaff and the City attorney have correctly found that the Gro\vth Management policies are not part of the approval criteria, and the proposed amend'ments are not required to c.omply with the cited policies. . Mr. Hi'nkley"s testimony cited the Growth Managetnent section stating that the policies should "guide the \\tork" of City staff. Policies that "guide" \\lork are obviously not necessarily mandatory criteria for approval of a land use action, and the testimony's assertion that the amendments must comply' with Growth Management policies has no legal basis. As to the policies themselves, Policy 6 is the pivotal policy relevant to the proposed actions, and it clearly directs that City actions maintain the character and livability of individual neighborhoods. A quick review' of the other policies cited "in testimony makes clear they do not "trump" this requirement. Nor do the proposed amendments c.onflict \vithany of these pol IC ies: o Policy 1 directs the City to "take actions to increase density ... "This policy does not contain any language restricting other types of actions. o Policy 2 directs the City to "encourage in-fill..." This policy is aspirational, not proscriptive, and does not contain any language restricting other types of actions. o Policy 5 directs the City to "Work cooperatively \vith Metro Area partners... to avoid urban spra\\!l ... H This policy is a.spirational~ not prosc.riptive, and does not contain any language restricting other types of actions. o Policy 6 - "Increase the density! ofne,\! housing development \vhile l11.aintaining the character and livabHityof in,dividual neighborhoods.'~ l'l1i8 policy is 4 111-26