Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

1350 Lawrence #1.' E.ugene, OR 97401 5 Dec,enlber 2006 E.ugene Plamling Commission 99 West lOth Avenue E.ugene OR 97401 . . . . t- Re: Jefferson Neighborhood (Area 15) Metro Plan, Amendment, Refinement Plan Amendment and Code Change (MA 16-5, RA16-3 and CA 16-1 Commissioners Before you tonight is a package oHhree separate but linked legislative actions a Metro Plan Amendment, a Refinement Plan Amendment and a revision of part of Chapter 9 of the Eugene Code. These actions are quite possibly.the worst set of land use amendments I have seen in the over twelve y~s I have followed Eugene Land Use matters. First, they are contrary to two of the pertinent Statewide Planning Goals. They are also inconsistent with the Metro Plan and remaining portions of the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan. Second because of this lack of consistencywith.these adopted Goals and Policies they fail to meet any of the applicable approval criteria. Third they fail to meet all seven of the relevant Growth Management Policies. TIley will open the. City to the possibility of costly legal actions. Lastly they will not accomplish. the desired effect of stopping incompatible in-fill. These proposed actions are a complete waste of the City's and tIle public's time alld limited reSOUfc.es. From the materials provided by the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) and from personal experience gained during my ten year tenure as a co-chair of first the Jefferson Area NeighbOrs and later the JWN I am fully aware that a number of the resident-property owners in Area 15 as well as the Neighborhood in general are not happy with the manner andfonn ofthe in-fill projects being developed in Area 15. I am aware that this in-fill development is perceived by some as damaging the character of the neighborhood. I have first hand knowledge gained in a challenge to a bad development proposal that the current Site Review Criteria are less then effective mitigating the negative effects of some of these in-fill development proposals. The problem with the proposal before you is that it does not directly address the problem through the development of a set of design standards with teeth to mitigate the negative impacts of in-fill. Rather it attempts to indirectly address the problem by attempting to back-door a two year moratorium on in-fill development by dO\vn-zoning Area 15. Which if if was effective might have been a interesting approach but since it doesn't it is just a waste of our collective time and. resources. Time and resources that could be much better spent developing a workable set of area or neighborhood design standards. The specific problems with the proposed Amendments and Code Change are discussed below in detail. IiInkley 'Testimony on f\lIA 06-5, Ra 06-3 and (~~t\ 06..1 5 Decenlber 2006 Page 1 of 12 pages