Ordinance No. 20035 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

commission held a work session. qn gctober 14, 1995, the commission held a second ublic . p hearing. The P1anYUng Com~m~ss~on held a work session on gctober 31, 1995, for further discussion and action on the CIR code amendments. The initial draft CIR code amendment only involved replacing the map Figure 32 of the code} which is currently based on 1980 census data, with a revised map based on 1994 census data. This map is part of the City's Housing Dispersal Policy Plan which graphically shows areas where subsidized low~income housing is saturated, i.e., census block groups in which subsidized housing units equal 24 percent or more of the total number of housing units within that block group, or a block group in which more than 54 percent of all families residing within that block group have incomes at 54 percent of median income or below. These areas are known as "non- priority" areas under the current dispersal plan, and are proposed to be referred to as "unavailable areas" under the draft plan. The CIR code language existing prior to the adoption of this ordinance} that references this map SEC Section 9.724-~2}-~c}} is one of the approval criteria for CIR housing with increased density and states: The increase in density at the proposed location will not result in a block group in which family-occupied units in subsidized housing house 24 percent or more of the total number of families within that block group; or a block group in which more than 54 percent of all families residing within that block group have incomes at 54 percent of median income or below, as shown on Figure 32. The intent of this criterion, which was adopted as part of the March 6, 1995 CIR code amendments ACA 93-3}, was to prohibit locating CIR, housing projects in a block group which is already concentrated with low-income housing. Those areas are shown as non-priority areas on Figure 32. See City Council Agenda Item Summary CA 93-3 dated March 6, 1995.} The mathematical calculations explained in the criterion were meant to show how the shaded areas on Figure 32 were arrived at. If a proposed CTR project with increased density was located in a shaded area, then the criteria would not be satisfied; if the area was not shaded then the criterion would be satisfied. The reference to the map was intended to provide a clear and objective standard. The use of the words from the above approval criterion-"will not result"--has created a problem and was discussed by the commission as needing clarification. qne possible interpretation of this criterion could be that CIR projects not be located in a black group if the increased density of a pro ject causes a block group to become a saturated block group, This was not the intent. The intent was to prohibit increased density projects in areas that were already saturated; i.e., in areas that are shaded on Figure 32. The commission, with the advice of the City Attorney's gfftce, recommended replacement of the ex lanato mathematical calculation P rY wording with a provision that simply prohibits a CIR project from being located in the shaded areas shown on the revised map Figure 32 of the grdinance}, and allows a CIR project in the other areas of the map which are not shaded. The changes to the CTR provisions of the City Code as recommended by the Planning Commission were as follows: Page 2 - FIlV~DINGS AND CGNCLUSIQNS GF THE EUGENE C~'Y CGUNCIL EXHIBIT A Re: Controlled Income and Rent Housing Code Amendments ACA 95-1}