Item 8: Ordinance Establishing Chambers Special Area Zone

Home Browse Search

The specter of a "domino effect/' in which Eugene neighborhoods inevitably fall under the S-CIR-2 standards, overlooks the fact that PDD staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council are not likely to ignore their responsibility to carefully consider any forthcoming proposal for zoning changes in other areas. . We would also note that even the Friends Of Eugene organization, a vigorous opponent of urban spraw~ strongly supports the proposed standards and has voiced no concerns that adopting them will lead to changing the UGB. Council can adopt the S-C/R-2 standards without any danger that Council will lose control of residential zoning or strategies to promote compact growth. In contrast, a very real and severely damaging precedent would be set by rejecting the result of a public process that many staff: Planning Commissioners, and Councilors have acclaimed as a model for constructive citizen involvement. The S-CIR-2 standards themselves are broadly supported and widely recognized as being exceptionally weU- crafted for their purpose. Without compelling reasons, negating the successful outcome of this public process would send the strongest message to citizens that constructive participation in land use decisions effecting their neighborhoods is a futile endeavor. Opportunity siting should be completed for the S-C area. Councilors Bettman and Kelly both expressed the desire to have "opportunity siting" completed for the S-C area, which is targeted as the potential Chambers MUC. We fully agree. Residents in this area have been promoting a similar approach even before Council adopted opportunity siting as the primary method to achieve density in MUCs. CAFHN did what we could to further this step by identifying potential sites, which Councilor Bettman accurately pointed out is just the first step. The next step requires staff resources, and residents are ready to help advance opportunity siting and a Chambers MUC as soon as such a project is begun. Councilor Kelly expressed concern that "half the cart is ahead of the other half the cart" because the S-C code includes standards to protect neighborhood character, but not any implementation of opportunity siting. We see it a bit differently, and think addressing the ongoing problem of inappropriate infill makes a lot of sense as the first of several steps towards a Chambers MUC. First, every relevant City and Metro Area density benchmark will be exceeded in the S-C area without requiring an increase in allowable density on any of the parcels identified as potential "opportunity sites" (or any other S.C parcels). Implementing opportunity siting on any parcel will only increase the amount that S-C density levels exceed relevant benchmarks. While we hope Council will direct staff to move forward with opportunity siting (and mixed-use commercial development), there is nothing in the proposed S-CIR-2 standards that depends on opportunity siting to achieve density targets. 2