Item 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments

Home Browse Search

lowering the density of Area 15 this nonnalexpansion of a node is being stifled which is clearly no ~ay to implement nodal development. .For the reasons givenahove the proposedplan amendments clearly do not encourage transportation-efficient land use patterns as a result the proposed plan amendments and code changes'are contrary to this policy. .. There is one other Growth Management policy that pertains to housing, it is Policy 9. This policy reads as follows: 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; [Resolution 4554, section (1), policy 9] It is interesting to note that while this policy directly address the basic motivation behind the proposed plan amendments and code changes it does not apply to them. For rather then following this policy and developing design standards mitigate the negative impacts of higher densities and in-fiU the proposed plan amendments and code changes attempt to stop the development of in-fill good and bad. It is clear from the fmdings.as well as the comments above that the City Manager and his staff did not follow the policy guidance provided by the City Council in Resolution 4554, specifically, that the adopted growth management policies be used as a guide in. fonnulating changes to the Eugene Code, 1977 of which the Land Use Code is part. As a result of this failure, the Proposed Metro and Refinement Plan amendments are not consistent with either the letter or spirit of the City's Adopted Growth Management Policies. For this reason I recommend thatthe Planning Commission in its submission to the City Council not recommend the approval of the proposed Plan Amendments and Code Change and instead recommend to the council that the entire package be sent back to staff for a rewrite that is consistent with the adopted policies of the City of Eugene as required bit resolution 4554. Sunset Clause At first glance the sunset clause looks like a good idea, it means that unless a future council takes action to extend it the proposed changes are temporary. The problem is thanks to Measure 37 these changes will expire before they actually apply to existing property owners. The City currently has no money budgeted to fight Measure 37 claims,and there is no indication that it will have it budgeted in the next fiscal year either. This means that the City will likely wave the land use limitations on development, like this dO\\'l1-zoning proposal, rather then. pay the lost value. This means as a practical matter the proposed density reduction will only apply to new mvners. And given the tactic of using irrevocable option to purchase as a way for a new property owner with the cooperation of the existing property owner to develop the property to an older standard it is not clear that it \vould appl:y to them either. At best the Sunset Clause is a meaning less feature of a legislative proposal that is not likely to have th~ intended effect. At worst it provides cover for the adoption of a legislative package that Hinkley l'estirnony on T'v1A06...5} Ra 06...3 and (~).I\ 06-1 5 December 2006 Page 11 of 12 pages