HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 5-20-19 Work SessionMay 20, 2019, Work Session
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
May 20, 2019
5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Meeting of May 20, 2019;
Her Honor Mayor Lucy Vinis Presiding
Councilors Betty Taylor, President Emily Semple, Vice President Mike Clark Greg Evans Chris Pryor Claire Syrett Jennifer Yeh Alan Zelenka
5:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Harris Hall, 125 East 8th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
1.Committee Reports and Items of Interest
•Resolution in Support of Juliana vs U.S. Youth Plaintiffs
•Resolution Endorsing Green New Deal
2.WORK SESSION: Clear & Objective Housing - Approval Criteria Update
May 20, 2019, Work Session
For the hearing impaired, an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours' notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation will also be provided with 48 hours' notice. To arrange for these services, contact the receptionist at 541-682-5010. City Council meetings are telecast live on Metro Television, Comcast channel 21, and rebroadcast laterin the week.El consejo de la Ciudad de Eugene agradece su interés en estos asuntos de la agenda. El lugar de la reunión tiene acceso para sillas de ruedas. Se puede proveer a un intérprete para las personas con discapacidad auditiva si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. También se puede proveer interpretación para español si avisa con 48 horas de anticipación. Para reservar estos servicios llame al 541-682-5010. Las reuniones del consejo de la ciudad se transmiten en vivo por Metro Television, Canal 21 de Comcast y son retransmitidas durante la semana.
For more information, contact the Council Coordinator at 541-682-5010 or visit us online at www.eugene-or.gov.
Resolution - Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. ______
A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR SUPPORT OF THE JULIANA V. U.S.
YOUTH PLAINTIFFS AND THE SCIENCE-BASED NATIONAL
CLIMATE RECOVERY PLAN THEY SEEK.
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.There is a broad scientific consensus among climate scientists that human activities,
contributing to increases in greenhouse gas emissions, are the dominant cause of climate change.
B.Mean global temperature is increasing as a result of increased atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), emitted from human
activities, including burning fossil fuels; and the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on
record; and if trends continue 2019 will join 2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015 in being the hottest years
on record.
C.CO2 levels in the atmosphere have surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the
first time in 3,000,000 years, with a global annual mean of 408.5 ppm in 2018.
D. The last time CO2 levels were as high as they are today the seas were approximately
65 feet higher and Greenland was ice-free.
E.Emissions of greenhouse gases and especially CO2 are already causing large-scale
planetary changes including ocean acidification, ocean warming, and warming of the Earth’s
surface, which lead to rising seas, more frequent and severe extreme weather events, heat waves
and drought, intense and destructive wildfires, disrupted ecosystems and agriculture, more disease,
famine, and conflict and human loss of life, all of which have devastating impacts on physical,
emotional and psychological wellbeing.
F.The impacts of climate change will worsen as greenhouse gases are emitted into the
atmosphere and accumulate over the coming decades, and will profoundly impact the youngest
generation throughout their lives, as well as the lives of future generations.
G.The Fourth Oregon Climate Assessment Report, issued by Oregon Climate Change
Research Institute in 2018 (OCCRI Report), found that the threat posed by climate change is real
and Oregon’s climate is projected to warm on average 3–7°F by the 2050s and 5–11°F by the
2080s.
H.The OCCRI Report warns that the health of Oregonians is threatened, as more
frequent heat waves are expected to increase heat-related illness and death; more frequent wildfires
and poor air quality are expected to increase respiratory illnesses; warmth and extreme
precipitation are expected to increase the risk of exposure to some vector- and water-borne
diseases; access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food may be jeopardized.
May 20, 2019, Work Session - item 1
Resolution - Page 2 of 3
I.Specific to the Willamette Valley, including the City of Eugene, the most densely
populated and fastest-growing region in Oregon, greater risks of extreme heat events, summer
water scarcity, poor air quality and, according to the Fourth National Climate Assessment, a
significant influx of climate refugees from other parts of the U.S. are expected.
J.The scientific prescription for avoiding the worst effects of climate change requires
returning atmospheric levels of CO2 to 350 ppm by the year 2100, requiring a 96% reduction in
fossil fuel emissions by 2050, in addition to significant increases in natural carbon sequestration
through reforestation and soil management changes.
K.If emission reductions are delayed, it will make it difficult or impossible to meet a
safe target; thus, urgent and substantial reductions in CO2 emissions are critical.
L.Cities have a duty to current and future generations to protect our climate system
and take science-based action on climate change.
M.The City of Eugene amended its Climate Recovery Ordinance in 2016 to establish
a community CO2 emissions reduction target in line with the 350 ppm by the year 2100 trajectory.
N.In a landmark constitutional climate case called Juliana v. U.S., twenty-one youth,
including six Eugenians, filed a lawsuit against the executive branch of the United States
government for its role in perpetuating climate disruption, alleging violation of the youths’ and
future generations’ rights to life, liberty and property, and equal protection under the law, while
also failing to protect essential public resources.
O.If the Juliana youth plaintiffs are successful in their case, the federal government
likely will be ordered to create and implement a science-based national Climate Recovery Plan
designed to phase out the United States’ fossil fuel energy system and emissions and draw down
excess atmospheric CO2 in line with the 350 ppm by 2100 prescription, thus enhancing Eugene’s
efforts to get off of fossil fuels and providing us an opportunity to avoid the worst of the
predicted climate impacts, stabilize the climate system for current and future generations, protect
our communities from fossil fuel pollution, and protect vital natural resources for all.
P.On November 10, 2016, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken found that “the right to a
climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society,” thus
allowing the Juliana v. U.S. case to move toward trial.
Q.The Juliana v. U.S. case will be heard on June 4, 2019 by a three-judge panel
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through a process called interlocutory appeal, now is
the time for cities to speak out in solidarity.
R.The voice of the City of Eugene on behalf of its citizens is critically needed, as we
envision a society free of fossil fuels and thereby free of the physical, emotional and psychological
impacts of climate change on residents of Eugene.
May 20, 2019, Work Session - Item 1
Resolution - Page 3 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EUGENE, a
Municipal Corporation of the State of Oregon, as follows:
Section 1. The City of Eugene supports the 21 Juliana v. U.S. youth plaintiffs and Climate
Recovery Plan they seek.
Section 2. The City of Eugene recognizes the need for all emissions reduction targets to
be based in science.
Section 3. The City Council encourages people to attend events held in support of the
Juliana v. U.S.
Section 4. The City of Eugene directs the City Manager to transmit official copies of this
resolution to the following Oregon cities and counties: City of Ashland, City of Corvallis, City of
Milwaukie, City of Portland, City of Salem; Benton County, Clackamas County, Columbia
County, Deschutes County, Lane County, Linn County, Marion County, Multnomah County,
Washington County and Yamhill County.
Section 5. This Resolution is effective immediately upon its passage by the City Council.
The foregoing Resolution adopted the ____ day of ________________________, 2019.
_________________________________________
City Recorder
May 20, 2019, Work Session - Item 1
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Work Session: Clear & Objective Housing - Approval Criteria Update Meeting Date: May 20, 2019 Agenda Item: 2 Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Jenessa Dragovich
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-8385
ISSUE STATEMENT The City Council will be provided with a project update of the Clear & Objective Housing Approval Criteria Update, including draft land use code language to implement the previously approved recommendations. The City Council is requested to review the draft land use code language and take action to move forward with the formal adoption process.
BACKGROUND As part of the Envision Eugene urban growth boundary process, in 2015, City Council initiated several projects. These included establishing a baseline UGB, establishing urban reserves, growth monitoring and updating the City’s needed housing (clear and objective) regulations. Related to the City’s needed housing regulations, the council specifically directed the following action:
-Update the City’s procedures and approval criteria for needed housing
applications (applications to develop housing in areas identified for housing
in the City’s Buildable Lands Inventory and Housing Needs Analysis).
-Target for City consideration of proposed updates: within 1 year of State
acknowledgement of the baseline UGB.Through this project, Eugene’s existing clear and objective approval criteria are being reevaluated for potential updates. Proposed updates must meet the following goals: •accommodate housing on lands available within our current UGB•provide a clear and objective path to land use approval for all housing as required by Statelaw•guide future housing development in a way that reflects our community’s valuesThe project has identified land use approval criteria and procedures to be updated, added or removed to improve efficiency in complying with State requirements for clear and objective regulations, while still effectively addressing development impacts. As a reminder, state law requires that local governments adopt and apply clear and objective standards, conditions and procedures regulating the development of all housing. The intent of this
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
requirement is to ensure that communities provide a predictable path to approval for housing projects and that path does not rely on discretionary or subjective criteria. This may include development standards such as setbacks and building height that apply to housing at the time of building permit as well as land use application criteria that apply to land use applications, such as subdivisions, for the development of housing. Cities that provide a clear and objective land use application approval path may also adopt alternative or “discretionary” approval criteria that developers may elect to follow to, for example, allow greater flexibility in housing development proposals. Eugene has a two-track system currently, and this project is focused on the existing clear and objective approval criteria for our conditional use, partition, planned unit development, site review, and subdivision applications. The Clear & Objective Update was kicked-off in 2018 and consists of four phases. The project was designed to provide incremental review of proposed code changes, with public involvement and review by Planning Commission and City Council provided during each phase of the project. Stakeholders helped identify significant issues in Phase 1, helped generate possible concepts in Phase 2, and had opportunity in Phase 3 to weigh in on draft amendments. Planning Commission and City Council check-ins have occurred at key project milestones. Phase 4 will be the formal adoption process, where the public will again be able to provide input through Planning Commission and City Council public hearings
Draft Land Use Code Language The draft code writing phase is based on the Draft Preferred Concept Report (provided with the November 19, 2018, agenda packet), which was the outcome of Phase 2. The report presented staff recommendations on how to address the 37 key issues identified during Phase 1 of the project (and described in the Summary of Key Issues Report). The recommendations from the Draft Preferred Concept Report were derived using input from the working groups, research into the issues and possible concepts, consultation with internal staff who work with the land use application review process daily, and a concept evaluation rubric for the 19 significant issues. Planning Commission reviewed and provided feedback on all preferred concept recommendations over the course of four work sessions in November and December. The draft preferred concepts were split into two batches. Batch 1 includes all maintenance issues and less complex issues. Batch 2 includes the more complex issues. Approved concepts for both batches were advanced to the code writing stage by City Council. A summary of the approved concepts is provided in Attachment A. Based on the approved concepts, draft land use code language was crafted using the help of consultants (for tree preservation and transition standards), researching other examples and best practices, and with internal review from City staff who work with the land use code on a daily basis. It is important to note that the proposed code language is still draft, and staff expects language to change before and during the formal adoption process as we continue to receive feedback and analyze the draft language in order to best achieve the approved recommendations. Draft code language will likely also evolve through the formal adoption process in response to ongoing feedback; however, the proposed language provides a basic framework for implementing the approved concepts.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
Planning Commission Review of Draft Code Language Planning Commission reviewed draft land use code language for Batch 1 issues at a work session in February 2019 and Batch 2 issues during three work sessions in April 2019. The items covered in each batch are listed below. For the proposed language, staff reviewed the related key issues and provided the approved preferred concept for context, before the commission opened the item for discussion. At the end of the discussion, a straw poll to determine support for each recommendation was taken. Batch 1 Items:
• All Maintenance Issues
• 30-Foot Buffer Requirement for PUDs (COS-02)
• Emergency Response (COS-08)
• Conditional Use Requirement (COS-09)
• Partition Tree Preservation (COS-10)
• Site Review Requirement (COS-12)
• 19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal (COS-14)
• PUD Requirement (COS-16)
• Arborist and Landscape Architect Requirement (COS-18)
• Pedestrian Definition (COS-20)
Batch 2 Items:
• Clear & Objective Compatibility (COS-01)
• 20 Percent Slope Grading Prohibition for ST & PUD (COS-03)
• One Acre Accessible Open Space for PUDs (COS-04)
• Limitation Over 900 Feet for PUDs (South Hills) (COS-05)
• Ridgeline Setback for PUDs (South Hills) (COS-06)
• 40 Percent Open Space Requirement for PUDs (South Hills) (COS-07)
• Tree Preservation Consideration (COS-11)
• Geotechnical Requirement (COS-13)
• Street Standards Modifications (COS-19) A summary of Planning Commission’s review of draft code language is provided in Attachment B and draft land use code language is included in Attachment C.
Next Steps The formal adoption process will include a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation to City Council, followed by City Council public hearing and action. The project website contains all documents associated with this project and is updated regularly with information about where we are in the process as well as project resources as they are available.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION May 30, 2018, Update November 26, 2018, Work Session Move to advance the maintenance concepts and the significant concepts identified in this AIS as less complex to the draft land use code writing phase. (Motion passed) January 23, 2019, Work Session Move to advance the preferred concepts identified in Attachment B to this AIS, as supported by Planning Commission, to the draft land use code writing phase. (Motion passed)
COUNCIL OPTIONS The City Council may consider the following options: 1. Advance the draft land use code language identified in Attachment C to this AIS, to the formal adoption process. 2. Advance the draft land use code language identified in Attachment C to this AIS, to the formal adoption process, with specific modifications. 3. Decline to advance the draft land use code language identified in Attachment C to this AIS.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends the City Council advance the draft land use code language identified in Attachment C to this AIS, to the formal adoption process.
SUGGESTED MOTION Move to advance the draft land use code language identified in Attachment C to this AIS, to the formal adoption process.
ATTACHMENTS A. Summary of Approved Concepts B. Summary of Planning Commission Review of Draft Amendments C. Draft Amendments
FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Jenessa Dragovich, Senior Planner Telephone: 541-682-8385 E-Mail: jdragovich@eugene-or.gov
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Approved Concepts Summary Page 1 of 3
Clear & Objective Update
Approved Concepts Summary
Approved Concepts are the recommended preferred concepts supported by Planning
Commission and approved by City Council for each key issue identified within the scope of
the Clear & Objective Housing: Approval Criteria Update. Proposed land use code language
has been crafted to implement these approved concepts. The following table provides a
quick reference to the key issues and their associated approved concepts. A short table at
the end lists key issues where the approved concepts did not result in proposed code
language.
Key Issue Approved Concept
COM-01 Needed Housing Criterion For conditional use, partition, planned unit development,
site review, and subdivision applications, remove
criterion that requires applicant to demonstrate that the
proposed housing is needed housing.
COM-02 Applicable Standards
Reference for CUPs
For conditional use, revise the language to require
compliance with all applicable standards (instead of using
“including but not limited to”) and add additional
development standards to the list of standards, including
public improvement and street standards.
COM-03 Bonding Requirement For conditional use permits and site reviews, revise the
timing specified to construct or bond for required public
improvements to be prior to issuance of a development
permit.
For final planned unit developments not associated with
land divisions, add a criterion, similar to that required for
final subdivisions, to require that public improvements be
completed or bonded prior to approval of the final
application.
COM-04 Overlay Zone Standards Revise the clear and objective track approval criteria for
the five application types to include compliance with the
lot dimensions and density requirements in overlay
zones. Use the same language provided for the
discretionary track applications to require compliance
with: “Lot standards of EC 9.2000 through 9.4170
regarding applicable lot dimensions and density
requirements.”
COM-05 Planned Unit
Development
Adjustment/Modification
Replace criterion that requires compliance with “all
applicable development standards explicitly addressed in
the application except where the applicant has shown
that a modification is consistent with the purposes as set
out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit Development”
For background information on the proposed amendments, refer to the Preferred Concepts Report
available on the project website at: www.eugene-or.gov/3947/Clear-Objective
Attachment A
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Approved Concepts Summary Page 2 of 3
Key Issue Approved Concept
with a requirement for compliance with “all applicable
development standards explicitly addressed in the
application” and continue to allow for adjustment
reviews.
COM-07 Access Management
Requirement
Remove criterion
COM-09 Natural Resource
Protection Requirement
Remove Criterion
COM-10 Solar Lot Standards For planned unit developments, remove standard that
requires compliance with solar lot standards, if
subdivisions and planned unit developments are
reviewed concurrently (See Issue # COM-11, below).
COM-11 PUD/Subdivision
Concurrent Review
Revise to allow concurrent review of tentative planned
unit development and tentative subdivision or partition
applications.
COM-12 Review Track Renaming Rename the review tracks “Clear and Objective” (instead
of Needed Housing) and “Discretionary” (instead of
General). Change references to these review tracks and
to “Needed Housing” throughout Chapter 9 as needed.
COM-13 Site Review Street
Standards
For site reviews, add compliance with Standards for
Streets, Alleys, and Other Public Ways (EC 9.6800
through 9.6875) as an approval criterion.
COM-14 Duplicate
Neighborhood/Applicant
Meeting
Provide an exception under the neighborhood/applicant
meeting requirement at EC 9.7007 for subdivisions and
partitions when processed in conjunction with a planned
unit development.
COM-16 Off-Site Bike/Ped
Connections
For site reviews and conditional use, add the
requirement for off-site connections for bike and
pedestrian ways that already applies to partitions,
planned unit developments and subdivisions.
COM-18 Does Not Hamper
Provision of Public Open
Space
For subdivisions, add new criterion that requires
connection to adjacent City owned park land, open space
or ridgeline trail, unless Public Works Director
determines such a connection is not necessary.
COS-01 Clear & Objective
Compatibility
Add compatibility criterion to site reviews, conditional use
and planned unit development applications that applies to
higher-intensity development abutting lower intensity
development—include transition buffers (setbacks, height
limitation areas, and landscape screening) that are scalable
COS-02 30-Foot Buffer
Requirement for PUDs
Replace with new criterion from COS-01
COS-03 20 Percent Slope Grading
Prohibition
Remove and rely on COS-13
COS-04 One Acre Accessible Open
Space for PUDs
Revise required distance from open space from ¼ mile to ½
mile and make onsite requirement scalable
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Approved Concepts Summary Page 3 of 3
Key Issue Approved Concept
COS-05 Limitation Over 900 Feet
for PUDs
Revise to allow less intensive development above 900’ (2.5
units/acre) and include more stringent tree/vegetation
preservation requirements
COS-06 Ridgeline Setback for PUDs Revise to make setback applicable to areas above 900’
elevation.
COS-07 40 Percent Open Space
Requirement for PUDs
Remove requirement and rely on COS-04 (Accessible Open
Space for PUDs) and existing open space requirements for
multi-family developments.
COS-08 Emergency Response Add criterion to require letter from Fire Marshal’s office
stating that project complies with Eugene Fire Code for site
reviews, conditional use and planned unit development
applications; apply criterion to partitions and subdivisions
per COS-14
COS-09 Conditional Use
Requirement
Keep process, add compatibility criterion from COS-01
COS-10 Partition Tree Preservation Remove criterion
COS-11 Tree Preservation
Consideration
Add criterion that requires minimum preservation and
mitigation and implement a rating scale that takes into
account tree type, health, size and location.
COS-12 Site Review Requirement Keep process, add compatibility criterion from COS-01
COS-13 Geotechnical Requirement Revise existing criterion to address additional risk factors
COS-14 19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle
Dispersal
Rely on COS-08 (apply COS-08 to partitions and
subdivisions)
COS-19 Street Standards
Modifications
Add clear exceptions and add adjustment option
COS-20 Pedestrian Definition Use ORS definition with minor refinement
Approved Concepts Resulting in No Change
Issue Approved Concept
COM-06 Non-Conforming
Reference for ST & PT
No change
COM-08 Perpendicular Lot Sides No change
COM-15 Special Safety
Requirements Reference
No change
COM-17 Application Requirement
Criterion
No change at this time.
COS-15 Traffic Impact Defer to Public Works Transportation project getting
underway
COS-16 PUD Type III Process Hold for future land use code improvement project
COS-18 Arborist and Landscape
Architect Requirement
No change (Continue to require arborist on PUD design
team)
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update –Summary of Planning Commission Review of Draft Code Language Page 1 of 2
Clear & Objective Update
Summary of Planning Commission Review of Draft Code Language
The Planning Commission discussed draft land use code language for Batch 1 and Batch 2 over
four full work sessions. Staff asked commissioners to consider whether the draft code language
generally satisfied the 30 recommendations approved previously by the Commission and City
Council. It is important to note that the proposed code language is still draft, and staff expects
language to change before and during the formal adoption process as we continue to receive
feedback and analyze the draft language to best achieve the approved recommendations. Below is
a summary of the Commission’s support and suggestions as we move into the adoption process.
Batch 1 Draft Amendments (February 4, 2019)
Batch 1 contains draft language implementing all maintenance items and several less complex
significant items. Through straw poll votes, all proposed code language was supported
unanimously. A few items generated discussion regarding minor changes and/or considerations
that staff will carry forward.
Batch 2 Draft Amendments (April 16, April 23, and April 30, 2019)
Batch 2 contains draft language implementing the more complex significant items. Most of the
proposed code language was supported unanimously. The proposals that did not receive
unanimous support are addressed below:
•Changes to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards – Planning Commission
grappled with this item. The majority could support the proposed approach; however,
several had shared concerns regarding:
o Complexity of the proposed tree rating system
o The requirement to physically tag trees in the field (added cost burden)
o Lack of alternative options or choices for applicants
o The proposed mitigation (replanting) ratio being too high
In response, the draft language has been revised to remove the tagging requirement,
reduce the mitigation ratio, and add an alternative option. Staff will continue to explore
options for making the rating system less complex and providing additional options prior to
the formal adoption process. Planning Commission expressed that they would like to have
sufficient time to help refine the language through the formal adoption process.
•Elimination of the prohibition on grading slopes of 20 percent or greater for Planned Unit
Developments and Subdivisions – One commissioner was neutral on this given concerns
around adopting a landslide hazard map in connection to proposed geotechnical
requirement changes.
•Changes to the PUD One-Acre Open Space requirement – One commissioner is not in favor
of the previously approved recommended concept for this item .
•Change to the 300-foot Ridgeline Setback requirement for PUDs – The Planning
Commission had significant discussion about the intent and origin of this requirement ,
including the 300-foot setback. Some had concern that if the intent was to protect the
Attachment B
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update –Summary of Planning Commission Review of Draft Code Language Page 2 of 2
ridgeline trail, and no remaining land within the UGB is identified for acquisition by the
City, then the criterion might be unnecessary. Others noted concerns that the Urban
Growth Boundary, which the setback is actually measured from, is not an accurate marker
for the ridgeline. Several commissioners suggested the criterion be reevaluated. In an
initial straw poll, only one commissioner supported the proposed language. In an
alternative straw poll, to eliminate the original criterion, four commissioners supported
elimination, one commissioner did not, and two commissioners refrained from voting
based on wanting more information. In response, staff suggests moving forward with the
draft language as proposed to seek additional input from the public during the formal
adoption process.
•Elimination of the 40% Open Space requirement for PUDs in the South Hills area – One
commissioner is not in favor of the previously approved recommended concept for this
item.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 1 of 32
Clear & Objective Update
Draft Land Use Code Language
Proposed text in bold italic
Proposed deletions in [bracketed strike-out]
Explanatory text in alternate font
Definitions
9.0500 Definitions. As used in this land use code, unless the context requires otherwise, the
following words and phrases mean:
Pedestrian. Any person afoot or using any type of wheelchair.
This change implements the recommendation for COS-20 (Pedestrian Definition), to add a definition for the
term ‘pedestrian’ based on the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) definition with a minor modification. ORS defines
pedestrian as “any person afoot or confined in a wheelchair.” [Emphasis added] The minor modification is to
replace “confined to a wheelchair” with “using any type of wheelchair.”
Commercial Zones
9.2181 Special Standards for Table 9.2180.
(1)Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be adjusted in accordance with the
provisions of EC 9.8030(1). Modifications may be approved through a planned unit
development. (For planned unit development procedures refer to EC 9.7300
General Overview of Type III Application Procedures and for approval criteria refer
to EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria -
General/Discretionary or EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development
Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective.)
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”
Employment and Industrial Zones
9.2471 Special Standards for Table 9.2470.
(1)Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be adjusted pursuant to the provisions
of EC 9.8030(1) of this land use code. Modifications may be approved through a
site review or planned unit development. (For planned unit development procedures
refer to EC 9.7300 General Overview of Type III Application Procedures and for
For background information on the proposed language, refer to the Preferred Concepts Report available on
the project website at: www.eugene-or.gov/3947/Clear-Objective
Attachment C
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 2 of 32
approval criteria refer to EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval
Criteria – General/Discretionary.)
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
Natural Resource Zone
9.2520 Natural Resource Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements. The provisions of the
NR zone do not exempt a person or property from state or federal laws and regulations
that protect water quality, wetlands, or other natural areas. In cases where the NR zone
overlaps with the /WB wetland buffer overlay zone or the /WP waterside protection overlay
zone, only the provisions of the NR zone are applied.
* * *
(2)Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit. The following uses are permitted
conditionally in the NR zone:
(a)Nature interpretive centers and wetland research facilities, when such centers
or facilities are specified in or consistent with adopted plans or policies.
(b)Maintenance facilities for storage of equipment and materials used exclusively
for maintenance of wetlands and other natural resource areas.
Conditional use permit approval shall be based upon conformance with EC 9.2530
Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (19), in addition to EC
9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria -General/Discretionary.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
Public Land Zone
9.2687 Special Standards for Table 9.2686.
(1)Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be adjusted pursuant to the provisions
of EC 9.8030(1) of this land use code. Modifications may be approved through a
planned unit development. (For planned unit development procedures refer to EC
9.7300 General Overview of Type III Application Procedures and for approval
criteria refer to EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria -
General/Discretionary or EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development
Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective.)
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”
Residential Zones
9.2751 Special Development Standards for Table 9.2750.
* * *
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 3 of 32
(2)Maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, and maximum building
dimensions may be modified with an approved planned unit development permit.
(For planned unit development procedures refer to EC 9.7300 General Overview of
Type III Application Procedures and for approval criteria refer to EC 9.8320
Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria - General/Discretionary or
EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria –
Housing/Clear and Objective.)
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”
9.2761 Special Standards for Table 9.2760.
(1)Lot Standards.
* * *
(c)Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be modified with an approved
cluster subdivision in R-1 or Planned Unit Development (PUD) in any zone, or
adjustments may be made if consistent with the criteria in EC 9.8030(1)
and reviewed and approved concurrently with a planned unit
development in any zone, except that for applications proposing
housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria these
standards may not be adjusted within 50 feet of any property line that
abuts property zoned R-1.
This change is related to COM-05 (Planned Unit Development Adjustment/Modification) and COS-01 (Clear &
Objective Compatibility). The change is needed to retain the ability to adjust these standards under a
discretionary adjustment review option as the existing PUD allowance to modify them by showing consistency
with the purpose of PUD (EC 9.8300) is proposed to be removed. In addition, the exception to the adjustment
allowance within 50 feet of a property line that abuts a property zoned R-1 is to ensure a compatible transition
between existing single family development in R-1 and proposed PUD developments by requiring proposed lots
abutting existing development to meet lot standards.
Downtown Westside Special Area Zone
9.3216 Special Development Standards for Table 9.3215.
(1)Maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, and maximum building
dimensions may be modified with an approved planned unit development permit.
(For planned unit development procedures refer to EC 9.7300 General Overview of
Type III Application Procedures and for approval criteria refer to EC 9.8320
Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria - General/Discretionary or
EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria –
Housing/Clear and Objective.)
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”
9.3221 Special Standards for Table 9.3220.
(1)Lot area, frontage, and width minimums may be modified with an approved plannedMay 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 4 of 32
unit development permit. (For planned unit development procedures refer to EC
9.7300 General Overview of Type III Application Procedures and for approval
criteria refer to EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria -
General/Discretionary or EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development
Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective.)
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”
Jefferson Westside Special Area Zone
9.3626 Special Development Standards for Table 9.3625.
* * *
(9)Maximum building height and minimum building setbacks may be modified with an
approved planned unit development permit. (For planned unit development
procedures refer to EC 9.7300 General Overview of Type III Application Procedures
and for approval criteria refer to EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development
Approval Criteria - General/Discretionary or EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit
Development Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective.)
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”
Riverfront Park Special Area Zone
9.3725 S-RP Riverfront Park Special Area Zone Review Procedures. The master site plan for
developments proposed within the S-RP zone shall be reviewed through the conditional
use permit process provided in this land use code. For the purpose of this review, the
following criteria shall be applied in lieu of the criteria provided in EC 9.8090 Conditional
Use Permit Approval Criteria - General/Discretionary:
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone
9.4830 /WB Wetland Buffer Overlay Zone Land Use and Permit Requirements. Within the
/WB overlay zone, there are 2 categories of uses: those allowed by the base zone or
special area zone outside of the /WB area, and a more restrictive list of uses allowed
within the /WB area.
* * *
(2)Within /WB Areas:
* * *
(c)Uses Permitted Conditionally. The following uses are permitted conditionally
in the /WB overlay zone:
1.Nature interpretive centers, when specified in or consistent with adoptedMay 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 5 of 32
plans or policies.
2.Maintenance facilities for storage of equipment and materials used
exclusively for maintenance and management of wetlands and natural
areas.
Conditional use permit approval shall be based upon conformance with EC
9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards (2) through (19) in
addition to the conditional use criteria contained in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use
Permit Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
Telecommunication Facilities
9.5750 Telecommunication Devices-Siting Requirements and Procedures.
* * *
(2)Siting Restricted. No telecommunication facility, as defined in this land use code,
may be constructed, modified to increase its height, installed or otherwise located
within the city except as provided in this section. Depending on the type and
location of the telecommunication facility, the telecommunication facility shall be
either an outright permitted use, subject to site review procedures, or require a
conditional use permit.
* * *
(b)Site Review. A telecommunication facility which, pursuant to subsections (3)
through (5) of this section, is subject to site review shall be processed in
accordance with the site review procedures of this land use code. The criteria
contained in this section, as well as the criteria contained in EC 9.8440 Site
Review Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary, shall govern approval or
denial of the site review application. In the event of a conflict in criteria, the
criteria contained in this section shall govern. No development permit shall be
issued prior to completion of the site review process, including any local
appeal.
(c)Conditional Use Permit. A telecommunication facility which, pursuant to
subsections (4) or (5) of this section, requires a conditional use permit shall be
processed in accordance with the conditional use permit procedures of this
land use code, except that the variance provisions shall not apply. The criteria
contained in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria –General
/Discretionary and subsections (6) and (7) of this section shall govern
approval or denial of the conditional use permit application. In the event of a
conflict in criteria, the criteria contained in subsections (6) and (7) of this
section shall govern. No development permit shall be issued prior to
completion of the conditional use permit process, including any local appeal.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
Special Development Standards for Certain Uses
9.5860 Transition Standards for Housing/Clear and Objective Applications.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 6 of 32
(1)Applicability of Transition Standards. The transition standards at EC 9.5860(2)
shall apply to land use applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear
and objective approval criteria under EC 9.8100 Conditional Use Permit Approval
Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective, EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit
Development Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective, or EC 9.8445 Site
Review Approval Criteria – Housing/Clear and Objective. The transition standards
at EC 9.5860(2) apply to all new buildings and any building additions that increase
the square footage of livable floor area by 20 percent or more for any of the
following:
(a)Multiple-family development on property abutting or directly across a public
alley from land zoned R-1, R-1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR except where the
multiple-family development consists of:
1.a single tri-plex on one lot.
2.a single four-plex on one lot.
3.structures that are less than 30 feet in height.
(b)Assisted care, boarding and rooming house, campus living organization,
university or college dormitory, or single room occupancy (SRO), proposed
on property abutting or directly across a public alley from land zoned R-1, R-
1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR.
In cases where the standards in subsection (2) apply to building additions,
they shall be applicable between the addition and any property line abutting
or directly across a public alley from land zoned R-1, R-1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-
RN/LDR.
(2)Standards. The following standards apply to new buildings and building additions
identified in subsection (1) and must be applied along the portion of any property
line that abuts or is directly across a public alley from land zoned R-1, R-1.5, S-
C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR:
(a)Height and Setback Options. The proposed development must comply with
one of the following four options:
1.Option 1. The maximum building height of a new building or building
addition shall be limited to 35 feet. In addition, at least one of the
following must be provided along the entire portion of any property line
that abuts or is directly across a public alley from land zoned R-1, R-
1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR:
a.A 6-foot high, 100 percent sight-obscuring wooden fence or
masonry wall.
b.Landscaping with a minimum plant bed width of 7 feet meeting
EC 9.6210(3) High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3).
Driveways off an alley may intersect the required screening within 30
degrees of perpendicular, as measured from the centerline of the
driveway to the centerline of the alley right-of-way, and are limited to a
maximum width of 15 feet for one-way access or 28 feet for two-way
access.
2.Option 2. The minimum interior yard setback shall be 10 feet from the
portion of any property line that abuts or is directly across a public
alley from land zoned R-1, R-1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR. In addition:
a.At a point that is 25 feet above grade, the interior yard setback
shall slope at the rate of 10 inches vertically for every 12 inches
horizontally away from that property line until a point 50 feet away
from the property line.
b.For new buildings or building additions within 30 feet of R-1, R-
1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR zoned property, trees growing to a
mature height of at least 20 feet shall be planted at a minimum
interval of 15 feet, parallel to the property line, between buildings
and any property line that abuts or is directly across a public alleyMay 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 7 of 32
from land zoned R-1, R-1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR. In addition, one
of the following shall be provided along the portion of any
property line that abuts or is directly across a public alley from
land zoned R-1, R-1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR:
(1)A 6-foot high, 100 percent sight-obscuring wooden fence or
masonry wall.
(2)Landscaping with a minimum plant bed width of 7 feet
meeting EC 9.6210(3) High Screen Landscape Standard (L-3).
Driveways off an alley may intersect the required screening within
30 degrees of perpendicular, as measured from the centerline of
the driveway to the centerline of the alley right-of-way, and are
limited to a maximum width of 15 feet for one-way access or 28
feet for two-way access.
3.Option 3. A minimum 30-foot setback shall be provided between a new
building or building addition and the portion of any property line that
abuts or is directly across a public alley from land zoned R-1, R-1.5, S-
C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR. The 30-foot setback area may be used for open
space, vehicle use area, pedestrian circulation, bicycle parking,
stormwater quality facilities, or landscaping and must contain trees
growing to a mature height of at least 20 feet, spaced at a minimum
interval of 25 feet, parallel to and within five feet of the property line, in
the setback area.
4.Option 4. A new building or building addition shall be set back at least
50 feet or a setback equal to the height of the tallest building on the
development site, whichever is less, from the portion of any property
line that abuts or is directly across a public alley from land zoned R-1,
R-1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR. The 50-foot setback area may be used for
open space, vehicle use area, pedestrian circulation, bicycle parking,
stormwater quality facilities, or landscaping.
(b)Allowed intrusions into setbacks. In lieu of the permitted setback intrusions
provided at EC 9.6745(3) the following intrusions are allowed within the
interior yard setback area described in EC 9.5860(2)(a)2 through 4:
1.Eaves and chimneys may intrude a maximum of 2 feet into the vertical
plane of the interior yard sloped setback area. No other intrusions are
allowed into the vertical plane of the setback.
2.Dormers may intrude into the sloped portion of the interior yard sloped
setback area provided each dormer is no more than 10 feet wide and
the total width of all dormers on a given wall does not exceed 30
percent of the linear length of the building wall.
3.Architectural screens or arbors serving an upper floor balcony may
protrude a maximum of 6 feet into the sloped portion of the interior
yard sloped setback area.
(c)Balconies, decks and other outdoor spaces located above the ground floor
shall be setback at least 20 feet from any property line that abuts land zoned
R-1, R-1.5, S-C/R-1, or S-RN/LDR.
(d)Tree Exception. An exception to the tree planting required by subsections
(a)(2) and (3) is allowed if the applicant provides a signed and notarized letter
from the abutting property owner stating that the abutting property owner
does not desire the trees required by this section. This exception does not
apply to trees required by other applicable standards. Future development
proposals subject to the standards in this section will need to obtain a
separate exception from the tree planting requirements of this section.
This change implements COS-01 (Clear & Objective Compatibility). The new code section would apply to higher-
instensity development abutting lower-intensity development (e.g. multi-family development next to single May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 8 of 32
family development in the R-1 Low-Density Residential zone). The proposed code language provides four
options for providing a transition buffer where required.
General Standards for All Development
9.6010 Applications Proposing [Needed] Housing.
(1)As used in EC chapter 9.6000, the term “applications proposing [needed] housing to
be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria” includes:
(a)Applications that are proceeding (or have proceeded) under EC 9.8100,
9.8220, 9.8325, 9.8445, or 9.8520; or
(b)Applications for housing developments [permits] for residential uses
permitted outright in the subject zone that are entitled to clear and objective
standards pursuant to state statutes [proposed housing is needed housing
as defined by state statutes].
The changes listed above are related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming). The changes revise and clarify
references in the general standards contained in EC chapter 9.6000 that only apply to proposals reviewed under
the clear and objective approval criteria.
9.6710 Geological and Geotechnical Analysis.
* * *
(6)[Needed] Clear and Objective Housing. Unless exempt under 9.6710(3)[(a)-(f)], in
lieu of compliance with subsections (2), (4), and (5) of this section, applications
proposing [needed]housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval
criteria shall include a certification from an Oregon licensed Engineering Geologist,
an Oregon licensed Geotechnical Engineer, or an Oregon licensed Civil Engineer
with geological experience, prepared within five years of the date of application,
that includes the following information[stating]:
(a)Identification of any portion of the proposed development site that is
located in an area of moderate or high landslide susceptibility as shown
on the city’s adopted Eugene Landslide Hazard Map.
(ab) A statement t[T]hat the proposed development [activity]will not be impacted
by existing or potential stability problems or any of the following site
conditions: slopes 20 percent or greater, springs or seeps, depth of soil
bedrock, soil types, variations in soil types, open drainage ways, fill, or a
combination of these conditions.
(bc) If proposed development [activity]will be located in an area identified as
moderately or highly susceptible to landslides pursuant to (a), or will be
impacted by existing or potential stability problems or any of the site
conditions listed in (ab), the certification must also include:
1.A review of the suitability of the proposed lot layout, street
locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking
areas, and buildings given the landslide hazards, stability problems,
and/or site conditions identified in the certification;
2.Any recommended modifications to the proposed lot layout, street
locations, and proposed locations for utilities, driveways, parking
areas, and buildings that in the engineer’s opinion, would mitigate
the landslide hazards, stability problems, and/or site conditions
identified in the certification;
3.Methods for safely addressing the landslide hazards and/or site
conditions identified in (a) and (b)[.]; and,May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 9 of 32
4.Recommendations, if any, for additional geotechnical analysis for
future buildings or improvements on the development site.
5.Recommendations, if any, for additional geotechnical analysis for
future buildings or improvements on proposed lots or parcels.
If [a statement]certification is submitted under (6)(bc), the application shall include
the applicant’s statement that it will develop in accordance with the Engineer’s
[statement]certification.
This change implements COS-13 (Geotechnical Requirement). The revised code language adds additional risk
factors to be considered and clarifies specific items the professional certification must address. A new Eugene
Landslide Hazard Map—based on the recently released Department of Geology and Mineral Industries
(DOGAMI) landslide hazard maps—will be adopted as part of the proposed code amendments. Changes to this
section also relate to COS-03 (20 Percent Slope Grading Prohibition) and the recommendation to remove the
prohibition on grading and instead rely on the geotechnical review. The proposed change includes adding 20
percent or greater slopes as an indicator of potential stability problems and specifically requires review and
recommendations of the proposed lot layout and street locations.
9.6810 Block Length.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, b[B]lock length for
local streets shall not exceed 600 feet.[,]
(12)Applications not proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective
approval criteria, [unless an exception is] may be exempt from the block length
requirements in subsection (1)[granted] based on one or more of the following:
(2a) Physical conditions preclude a block length 600 feet or less. Such conditions
may include, but are not limited to, topography or the existence of natural
resource areas such as wetlands, ponds, streams, channels, rivers, lakes or
upland wildlife habitat area, or a resource on the National Wetland Inventory or
under protection by state or federal law.
(3b) Buildings or other existing development on adjacent lands, including previously
subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude a block length 600 feet
or less, considering the potential for redevelopment.
(4c) An existing public street or streets terminating at the boundary of the
development site have a block length exceeding 600 feet, or are situated such
that the extension of the street(s) into the development site would create a block
length exceeding 600 feet. In such cases, the block length shall be as close to
600 feet as practicable.
(5d) As part of a Type II or Type III process, the developer demonstrates that a strict
application of the 600-foot requirement would result in a street network that is no
more beneficial to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic than the proposed street
network and that the proposed street network will accommodate necessary
emergency access.
(23)Applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective
approval criteria, must comply with the block length requirements in
subsection (1) unless existing slopes would result in a street grade that
exceeds the grade allowed under current adopted street design standards
when measured along the centerline of the proposed streets to the existing
grade of the subdivision boundary or abutting property under separate
ownership.
(4)Block length may be adjusted in accordance with EC 9.8030(37) for
applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and objective
approval criteria.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 10 of 32
This change relates to COS-19 (Street Modifications). The proposed changes add new language to clarify the
available exceptions to block length, street connectivity, and cul-de-sac or emergency turnarounds for Clear &
Objective applications. An option to seek a discretional adjustment review is also proposed.
9.6815 Connectivity for Streets.
* * *
(2)Street Connectivity Standards.
* * *
(e)Except for applications proposing [needed] housing to be reviewed with
clear and objective approval criteria, all applicants shall show that the
proposed street alignment shall minimize excavation and embankment and
avoid impacts to natural resources, including water-related features.
* * *
(g)Except for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and
objective approval criteria, [I]in the context of a Type II or Type III land use
decision, the city shall grant an exception to the standards in subsections
(2)(b), (c) or (d) if the applicant demonstrates that any proposed exceptions
are consistent with either subsection 1. or 2. below:
* * *
(h)For applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and
objective approval criteria, exceptions to street connectivity standards
may be granted if one of the following conditions exists:
1.Existing buildings on land abutting the development site and under
separate ownership obstruct the extension of the planned street;
2.Existing slopes would result in a street grade exceeding current
adopted street design standards when measured along the
centerline of the proposed streets to the existing grade of the
subdivision boundary or abutting property under separate
ownership;
3.Provision of an intersecting street would require dedication of 25
percent or more of the total development site area.
4.Abutting residential land cannot be further divided under current
development standards.
(i)Street connectivity standards may be adjusted in accordance with EC
9.8030(37) for applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear
and objective approval criteria.
This change relates to COS-19 (Street Modifications). The proposed changes add new language to clarify the
available exceptions to block length, street connectivity, and cul-de-sac or emergency turnarounds for Clear &
Objective applications. An option to seek a discretional adjustment review is also proposed.
9.6820 Cul-de-Sacs or Emergency Vehicle Turnarounds.
* * *
(5)As part of a Type II or Type III process, an exception may be granted to the
requirements of (1), (3) and (4) of this section. For applications proposing
housing to be reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, exceptions
may only be granted as provided in subparagraph (c). For all other
applications, exceptions may be granted because of the existence of one or
more of the following conditions:
* * *
(c)For applications proposing housing to be reviewed with clear and
objective approval criteria, an exception to the requirements ofMay 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 11 of 32
subsections (1) through (4) may be granted if the applicant provides
certification from an Oregon licensed civil engineer stating that a cul-de-
sac or emergency vehicle turnaround cannot be constructed to meet
current standards according to the adopted Design Standards and
Guidelines for Eugene Streets, Sidewalk, Bikeways and Accessways;
(6)Cul-de-sacs or emergency vehicle turnarounds standards may be adjusted in
accordance with EC 9.8030(37) for applications proposing housing to be
reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria.
This change relates to COS-19 (Street Modifications). The proposed changes add new language to clarify the
available exceptions to block length, street connectivity, and cul-de-sac or emergency turnarounds for Clear &
Objective applications. An option to seek a discretional adjustment review is also proposed.
9.6845 Special Safety Requirements. Except for applications proposing [needed] housing to be
reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria, where necessary to insure safety,
reduce traffic hazards and promote the welfare of the general public, pedestrians,
bicyclists and residents of the subject area, the planning director or public works director
may require that local streets and alleys be designed to discourage their use by non-local
motor vehicle traffic and encourage their use by local motor vehicle traffic, pedestrians,
bicyclists, and residents of the area.
9.6865 Transit Facilities.
(1)Except for applications proposing [needed] housing to be reviewed with clear and
objective approval criteria, the city manager may require provisions, including
easements, for transit facilities where future transit routes are required on streets
extending through or adjacent to the area of the development, and where a need for
bus stops, bus pullouts or other transit facilities within the development has been
identified, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency with
constitutional requirements.
(2)Except for applications proposing [needed] housing to be reviewed with clear and
objective approval criteria, where the provision of transit stops, bus pullouts or
other facilities along a public street requires a right-of-way or paving width greater
than that listed in Table 9.6870 Right-of-Way and Paving Widths and where a need
for transit service within the development has been identified, the planning director
or public works director, depending upon the type of application being processed,
may require that additional right-of-way or paving be provided.
The changes listed above are related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming). The changes revise and clarify
references in the general standards contained in EC 9.6000 that only apply to proposals reviewed under the
clear and objective approval criteria.
9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards.
* * *
(2)Tree Preservation and Removal Standards. [No permit for a development activity
subject to this section shall be approved until the applicant submits plans or
information, including a written report by a certified arborist or licensed landscape
architect, that demonstrates compliance with the following standards:
(a)The materials submitted shall reflect that consideration has been given to
preservation in accordance with the following priority:]
[1. Significant trees located adjacent to or within waterways or wetlands
designated by the city for protection, and areas having slopes greater than
25%; May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 12 of 32
2.Significant trees within a stand of trees; and
3.Individual significant trees.]
(a)Definitions. For the purposes of this subsection (2), the following
definitions apply:
1.Significant Tree. A living, standing tree having a trunk with a
minimum diameter breast height of 8 inches, or, when there are
multiple trunks, having a minimum cumulative diameter breast height
of 8 inches, considering the 2 largest trunks measured at 4.5 feet
above mean ground level at the base of the trunk or trunks. Invasive
species listed in Table 9.6885(2)(d)4. are not significant trees.
2.Significant Tree Cluster. A group of five or more significant trees
where each tree in the group shares overlapping branches with at
least one other tree in the group.
3.South Hills Area: All properties located within the City’s adopted
Urban Growth Boundary, above an elevation of 500 feet, and:
a.South of 18th Avenue,
b.South of Franklin Boulevard and East of the intersection of 18th
Avenue and Agate Street, or
c.If 18th Avenue were extended from the intersection of 18th
Avenue and Willow Creek Road directly west to the Urban Growth
Boundary, the area south of that extension of 18th Avenue.
4.Tree Preservation and Removal Plan. A written report and site plan
prepared by a certified arborist or licensed landscape architect that
includes all significant trees on the development site and their critical
root zones (CRZ). This plan shall specify trees to be preserved, trees
to be removed, and trees to be mitigated according to 9.6885(2)(d)5.
This plan shall include proposed lot or parcel boundaries. For
development sites within the South Hills Area, this plan shall
delineate areas between 500 and 700 feet elevation, between 700 and
900 feet elevation, and areas above 900 feet elevation.
(b)Exemptions. A proposed development shall be exempt from the
requirements of EC 9.6885(2) if either of the following apply:
1.The development site is 13,500 square feet or less and not located in
the South Hills Area.
2.There are fewer than four significant trees on the development site.
3.The development site is in the R-1.5 Rowhouse zone.
(c)Tree Preservation and Removal Plan. An applicant must submit a Tree
Preservation and Removal Plan, prepared by a certified arborist or
licensed landscape architect, that includes all of the following:
1.Locations of all significant trees on the development site. For each
tree to be preserved, include the critical root zone (CRZ), protective
fencing location, and a percentage calculation of impacts to the CRZ.
For a tree to be counted as a preservation tree, CRZ impacts of more
than 30 percent are not allowed.
2.The location of all public and private utility easements, driveways,
and areas of grading or excavation on the development site.
3.All proposed development on the site and proposed lot or parcel
boundaries.
4.Identification of trees to be preserved, removed, or mitigated
according to 9.6885(2)(d)3.
5.For development sites within the South Hills Area, delineate areas
between 500 and 700 feet elevation, between 700 and 900 feet
elevation, and areas above 900 feet elevation.
6.A table with the Diameter Breast Height (d.b.h.), genus, species,
location factor, size factor, key species factor, and tree rating scoreMay 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 13 of 32
for all significant trees on the development site. The table shall be
organized by Location/Zone category according to Table
9.6885(2)(d)3.
a.Location Factor. Each significant tree shall be assigned a
numeric location factor according to Table 9.6885(2)(c)6.a. If
more than one listed location applies, then the highest rating
must be used.
Table 9.6885(2)(c)6.a. Tree Location Factor
Tree Location Rating
Front yard setback of proposed lot or parcel 1
Interior yard setback of proposed lot or parcel 2
Significant tree cluster 3
Front yard setback of development site (for land divisions, this means
prior to the proposed land division)
4
Interior yard setback of development site (for land divisions, this means
prior to the proposed land division)
5
In an area with slope greater than 25 percent 5
b.Size Factor. Trees shall be assigned a numeric size factor based
on genus, species, and Diameter Breast Height (d.b.h.) in
accordance with Table 9.6885(2)(c)6.b.
Table 9.6885(2)(c)6.b. Tree Size Factor
Genus and Species Common Name
8 -11
"
d
.
b
.
h
.
12
-15
"
d
.
b
.
h
.
16
-19
"
d
.
b
.
h
.
20
-23
"
d
.
b
.
h
.
24
-30
"
d
.
b
.
h
.
31
-42
"
d
.
b
.
h
.
>4
3
"
d
.
b
.
h
.
Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir 0 0 0 1 2 3 4
Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar 0 1 1 2 2 3 4
Thuja plicata Western Red Cedar 0 1 1 2 2 3 4
Abies Grandis Grand Fir 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf Maple 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Alnus rhombifolia White Alder 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Alnus rubra Red Alder 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon Ash 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Pinus ponderosa Ponderosa Pine 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Pinus contorta Lodgepole Pine 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Salix lucida ssp. Lasiandra Pacific Willow 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Salix scouleriana Scouler’s Willow 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Tsuga heterophylla Western Hemlock 1 1 2 2 3 4 5
Acer circinatum Vine Maple 1 2 3 4 5 5 5
Cornus nuttallii Pacific Dogwood 1 2 3 4 5 5 5
Quercus garryana Oregon White Oak 1 2 3 4 5 5 5
Quercus kelloggii California Black Oak 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 14 of 32
Arbutus menziesii Madrone 2 3 4 5 5 5 5
Taxus brevifolia Pacific Yew 2 3 4 5 5 5 5
Other Significant Tree Other Significant Tree 0 0 1 1 2 3 4
c.Key Species Factor. Significant trees listed by species name in
Table 9.6885(2)(c)6.b. shall be assigned a key species factor of
3.Trees that fall within the category of “Other Significant Tree”
shall not be assigned a key species factor.
d.Tree Rating Score. Each significant tree shall be assigned a tree
rating score that is the sum of location factor, size factor, and
key species factor.
(d)Tree Preservation Requirement.
1.Except as provided in EC 9.6885(2)(d)5, significant trees must be
protected and preserved in accordance with the requirements of Table
9.6855(2)(d)3.
2.The overall tree rating score referenced in Table 9.6885(2)(d)3. is the
sum of the tree rating scores for all significant trees located within the
development site or, if the development site is located in more than
one of the Location or Zone categories listed in Table 9.6885(2)(d)3.,
the overall tree rating score is the sum of the tree rating scores for all
significant trees located within each Location or Zone category.
3.If a development site is located in more than one Location or Zone
categories listed in Table 9.6885(2)(d)3., the Tree Preservation and
Removal plan must address each Location or Zone category
separately.
Table 9.6885(2)(d)3. Tree Preservation Requirements
Location Zone Minimum Preservation
Outside the South Hills Area All zones except R-1
Low-Density
Residential
At least 25 percent of the
overall tree rating score
R-1 Low-Density
Residential
At least 35 percent of the
overall tree rating score
Within the South Hills Area,
located above 500 feet and
below 700 feet elevation
All zones At least 35 percent of the
overall tree rating score
Within the South Hills Area,
located at or above 700 feet
and below 900 feet elevation
All zones At least 40 percent of the
overall tree rating score
Within the South Hills Area,
located at or above 900 feet
elevation
All zones At least 50 percent of the
overall tree rating score
4.Tree Preservation Exceptions.
a.Trees that are not significant can be removed.May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 15 of 32
b.Trees not counted toward meeting the minimum preservation
requirements in Table 9.6885(2)(d)3. can be removed.
c.Invasive species listed in the following table can be removed:
Table 9.6885(2)(d)4. Invasive Species
Genus and Species Common Name
Acer plantanoides Norway Maple
Aesculus hippocastanum Horsechestnut
Ailanthus altissima Tree-Of-Heaven
Betula pendula European Birch
Betula pubesc European Birch
Buddleia alternifolia Fountain Butterfly Bush
Buddleia davidii Fountain Butterfly Bush
Crataegus monogyna English Hawthorn
Ilex aquifolium English Holly
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Redcedar
Ligustrum vulgare Common Privet
Populus alba White Poplar
Prunus avium Sweet Cherry
Prunus cerasifera Thundercloud Plum
Prunus domestica Plum
Prunus laurocerasus English Laurel
Prunus lusitanica Portugal Laurel
Prunus mahaleb Mahaleb Cherry
Pyrus communis Pear
Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust
Sorbus aucuparia European mountain-ash
5.Mitigation.
a.An applicant may elect to mitigate significant trees on the
development site as provided below:
b.An applicant may mitigate significant trees with a collective tree
rating score of up to 50 percent of the overall tree rating score
applicable to the development site or portion of the development
site, as provided in EC 9.8865(2)(d)2-3 and Table 9.6885(2)(d)3.
c.Each tree to be mitigated must be replaced with one tree selected
from the named species listed in Table 9.6885(2)(c)6.b. At the time
of planting, deciduous trees used for mitigation must have a
minimum diameter of 2 inches as measured by American
Association of Nurserymen Standards and evergreen trees used
for mitigation must be a minimum of 6 feet in height.
d.Mitigation is not available for trees located on portions of the
development site at or above 900 feet in elevation.
6.Tree Preservation Area Alternative. A Tree Preservation and Removal
Plan according to EC 9.6885(2)(c) is not required if the applicant
chooses to preserve 30 percent of the existing number of significant
trees on the development site within one or more tree preservation
areas and the following conditions are met:
a.Applicant must provide certification from a certified arborist or
licensed landscape architect stating that the area(s) designated for
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 16 of 32
tree preservation includes 30 percent of the existing number of
significant trees on the development site.
b.Tree preservation area(s) must be delineated and individual trees
to be preserved must be shown on the final plan set submitted for
approval by the City.
7.Protection Standards. The following notes must be included on the
final plan set submitted for approval by the City and shall apply at the
time of development:
a.“Protective fencing for trees identified to be preserved shall be
installed by the applicant and inspected by the City prior to
beginning any development activities. All protective tree fencing
must remain in place until completion of all construction
activities; any relocation, removal, or modification of the
protective fencing shall only occur under the direction of a
certified arborist and a written explanation of the reason for the
relocation, removal, or modification of the protective fencing
from the certified arborist must be provided to the City.”
b.“At the time of building permit, a site plan in compliance with the
approved tree preservation and removal plan is required.”
c.“No excavation, grading, material storage, staging, vehicle
parking or other construction activity shall take place within
protective tree fencing areas.”
d.“The removal of trees not designated as ‘to be preserved’ is not
required; removal may occur at the applicant or future owners’
discretion.”
e.“In the event a tree designated to be preserved must be removed
because it is dead, diseased, or hazardous, documentation by a
certified arborist must be provided to the City prior to tree
removal. The tree(s) must be replaced with trees selected from
the named species listed in Table 9.6885(2)(c)7.b., and two
replacement trees must be planted for every one tree removed. At
the time of planting, replacement deciduous trees must have a
minimum diameter of 2 inches as measured by American
Association of Nurserymen Standards, and replacement
evergreen trees must be a minimum of 6 feet in height.”
(be)Street Tree Removal. If the proposal includes removal of any street tree(s),
removal of those street trees has been approved, or approved with conditions
according to the process at EC 6.305 Tree Felling Prohibition.
(3)Adjustment to Standards. Except for applications being processed under EC
9.8100 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria - [Needed] Housing/Clear and
Objective, EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria -
[Needed] Housing /Clear and Objective, EC 9.8445 Site Review Approval Criteria –
[Needed] Housing /Clear and Objective, or EC 9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan
Approval Criteria - [Needed] Housing /Clear and Objective, adjustments to these
standards may be made, subject to compliance with the criteria for adjustment in EC
9.8030(13) Tree Preservation and Removal Standards Adjustment.
This change implements COS-11 (Tree Preservation Consideration). The new language establishes a clear and
objective tree rating system and sets minimum tree preservation requirements, mitigation allowances, and
exemptions. The changes also relate to COS-05 (Limitation Over 900 Feet for PUDs) as they impose a higher tree
preservation requirement and do not allow mitigation in areas above 900 foot elevation. Changes in subsection
(3) are related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revise code references to the currently named General
and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the Needed
Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 17 of 32
Application Procedures
9.7007 Neighborhood/Applicant Meetings.
(1)This section applies to the following types of applications:
(a)Type II: 3-lot partitions, tentative subdivisions, tentative cluster subdivisions
and design reviews, except for 3-lot partitions and tentative subdivisions
that implement an approved tentative planned unit development;
This change is related to COM-14 (Duplicate Neighborhood/Applicant Meeting) and would provide an exception
for subdivisions and partitions when processed in conjunction with a planned unit development.
Application Requirements and Criteria
9.8030 Adjustment Review - Approval Criteria. The planning director shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny an adjustment review application. Approval or conditional
approval shall be based on compliance with the following applicable criteria.
* * *
(37)Street Standards Adjustment. Where this land use code provides that street
standards may be adjusted, the standards may be adjusted upon a
demonstration by the applicant that the requested adjustment is consistent
with the following:
(a)The applicant has submitted a report prepared by an Orgon licensed civil
engineer that demonstrates it is not technically or financially feasible to
construct the street in accordance with adopted plans and policies, and
adopted “Design Standards and Guidelines for Eugene Streets,
Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Accessways.”
(b)The adjustment is necessary due to at least one of the following
conditions:
1.Existing on-site or off-site geologic or topographic conditions, or
existing wetlands designated for protection by the City of Eugene; or
2.Existing development on lands abutting the development site.
This change relates to COS-19 (Street Modifications). The proposed new language provides discretionary
approval criteria for a new adjustment review option for Clear & Objective applications. If the clear and
objective exception to the standards cannot be met, applicants would have the option to apply for a
discretionary adjustment to the standards.
9.8045 Applicability of Cluster Subdivisions. Cluster subdivision provisions shall be applied
when requested by the property owner and when the proposed subdivision meets the
definition of cluster subdivision in section 9.0500 of this land use code. A subdivision
application proposing [needed housing, as defined in state statutes,] housing to be
reviewed with clear and objective approval criteria shall be processed pursuant to EC
9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria – [Needed] Housing/Clear and
Objective. No development permit shall be issued by the city prior to approval of the
cluster subdivision.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.”
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 18 of 32
9.8055 Cluster Subdivision- Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary. The planning director
shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed cluster subdivision. Approval
or approval with conditions shall be based on the following:
(1)The proposed subdivision complies with:
(a)EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria-
General/Discretionary except for the standards related to EC 9.2760
Residential Zone Lot Standards; and
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
9.8085 Conditional Use Permit Application Requirements.
* * *
(3)If the proposal includes [needed housing, as defined by state law] housing, the
written statement submitted with the conditional use permit application shall clearly
state whether the applicant is electing to use the [general] discretionary approval
criteria in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria –
General/Discretionary instead of the approval criteria found in EC 9.8100
Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria – [Needed] Housing/Clear and Objective.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” It also revises subsection (3)
consistent with state law requirement that proposals including housing, not just “needed housing,” are entitled
to clear and objective approval criteria.
9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary. A conditional use
permit shall be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following criteria:
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
9.8100 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria- [Needed] Housing/Clear and Objective.
The hearings official shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the conditional use
permit application. Unless the applicant elects to use the [general] discretionary criteria
contained in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use Permit Approval Criteria –
General/Discretionary, where the applicant proposes [needed housing, as defined by the
State statutes] housing, the hearings official shall approve or approve with conditions a
conditional use based on compliance with the following criteria:
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” This change also clarifies that this
section is only applicable to “housing applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to state
statute.”
(1)[The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as
defined by State statutes.] The proposal complies with EC 9.5860 Transition
Standards. May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 19 of 32
This change implements COS-01 (Clear & Objective Compatibility). The replacement text points to proposed
new transistion standards. For ease of use and code efficiency (as the standards will apply to three application
types), the new transition standards are proposed to be located under EC 9.5860 Transition Standards for
Housing/Clear and Objective Applications. Applicability is clear as the approval criteria for each of the three
application types will include a criterion requiring compliance with the transition standards. In addition, the
transition standards start with an applicability statement that identifies the three application types and
proposed uses subject to the standards.
(3)For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the proposal
will preserve existing natural resources by compliance with [all of the following:
(a)The proposal complies with] the provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree
Preservation and Removal Standards.
[(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as
“Natural Resource” are protected. Protection shall include the area of the
resource and a minimum 50 foot buffer around the perimeter of the natural
resource area.]
This change is related to COM-09 (Natural Resource Protection Requirement). The proposed change revises the
criterion to remove subsection (b) per the recommendation outlined in the Draft Preferred Concepts Report.
(4)The proposal complies with [all applicable standards, including, but not limited to:
(a)EC 9.2000 through EC 9.4170 regarding lot dimensions and density
requirements for the subject zone and overlay zone.
(b)EC 9.6500 through EC 9.6505 Public Improvement Standards.
*Renumber remaining subsections*
** *
(i)EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other
Public Ways.
(j)All other applicable development standards for features explicitly
included in the application.
(ik) An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at
EC 9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard.
This change to subsection (a) is related to COM-02 (Applicable Standards Reference for CUPs) and would add
clarity around which development standards apply; and COM-04 (Overlay Zone Standards) as it would extend
the range of the referenced code sections to include all overlay zones.
The changes to subsections (b), (i), and (j) are related to COM-02 (Applicable Standards Reference for CUPs) and
would require compliance with additional development standards.
(5)Public improvements as required by this land use code or as a condition of [tentative
plan] approval will be [have been] completed prior to issuance of a development
permit, or:
(a)A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city has
been filed with the city finance officer in an amount sufficient to assure the
completion of all required public improvements; or
(b)A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the real property
for the improvements has been signed by the property owner seeking the
conditional use permit, and the petition has been accepted by the city
engineer.May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 20 of 32
This change is related to COM-03 (Bonding Requirement). The proposed change revises the timing of the
requirement for completion or bonding of public improvements to prior to issuance of a development permit.
(6)If the standards addressed under EC 9.8100(4) require a public street, or if
the applicant proposes the creation of a public street, the proposal will
provide pedestrian and bicycle circulation to adjacent residential areas,
transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, parks, schools, commercial
centers, office parks, and industrial parks located within ¼ mile radius of the
development site, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate
consistency with constitutional requirements.
This change is related to COM-16 (Off-Site Bike/Ped Connections). The proposed change adds a requirement
that already applies to partitions, subdivisions, and planned unit developments. Minor revision to add clarity to
the requirement is also proposed.
(7) The applicant has submitted a letter from the Eugene/Springfield Fire
Marshal's office stating that the proposed development complies with the
applicable Eugene Fire Code (2014) requirements regarding fire apparatus
access roads and fire protection water supply, or will comply subject to
conditions of approval that are specified in the letter.
This change is related to COS-08 (Emergency Response). The proposed criterion would require a letter from the
Fire Marshal’s office to address Emergency Response concerns regarding fire apparatus access and fire
protection water supply.
9.8105 Conditional Use Permits within the NR Natural Resource Zone or /WB Wetland
Buffer Overlay Zone.
* * *
(2)Criteria for Hearings Official Approval. Applications for conditional use permits
within the NR natural resource zone or /WB wetland buffer overlay zone shall be
processed and scheduled for public hearings in the same manner as other
conditional use permit applications, except that NR standards (2) through (19) listed
in EC 9.2530 Natural Resource Zone Development Standards shall be considered
as additional criteria along with the criteria listed in EC 9.8090 Conditional Use
Permit Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
9.8205 Applicability of Partition, Tentative Plan Applications.
* * *
(2)A tentative plan application to partition land [application that also involves a PUD
request] may be submitted and reviewed concurrently with the [not be submitted
until a decision on the] tentative PUD application following a Type III application
procedure [approval is final]. If a partition application that also involves a PUD
request is not submitted concurrently with the tentative PUD, the partition
application may not be submitted until a tentative PUD is approved. (Refer to
EC 9.8305 Applicability.)May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 21 of 32
(3)If the partition tentative plan application is not reviewed concurrently with the
tentative PUD, Nno development permit shall be issued by the city prior to approval
of the tentative partition application., If the tentative partition is reviewed
concurrently with the tentative PUD application, no development permit shall
be issued by the city prior to approval of the final PUD application.
This change is related to COM-11 (PUD/Subdivision Concurrent Review). The proposed revisions would allow
concurrent review of tentative partition applications when the proposal also involves a PUD.
9.8210 Partition, Tentative Plan Application Requirements. In addition to the provisions in EC
9.7010 Application Filing, the following specific requirements apply to partition tentative
plan applications:
* * *
(4)If the proposal includes [needed housing, as defined by State statutes] housing, the
written statement submitted with the partition application shall clearly state whether
the applicant is electing to use the [general] discretionary approval criteria in EC
9.8215 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary instead of
the approval criteria found in EC 9.8220 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria-
[Needed] Housing/Clear and Objective.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” It also replaces the term “needed
housing” with “housing,” consistent with the state law requirement that proposals including housing, not just
“needed housing,” are entitled to clear and objective approval criteria.
9.8215 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary. The planning
director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a partition, with findings and
conclusions. Approval, or approval with conditions, shall be based on compliance with the
following criteria:
9.8220 Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- [Needed] Housing/Clear and Objective.
Unless the applicant elects to use the discretionary criteria contained in EC 9.8215
Partition, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary, for housing
applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to state statute, Tthe
planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the partition application.
[Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8215 Partition,
Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General, where the applicant proposes needed housing,
as defined by State statutes, the planning director shall approve or approve with
conditions a partition] based on compliance with the following criteria:
[(1) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as
defined by State statutes.] *Renumber remaining subsections.*
These changes are related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revise code references to the currently
named General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary”
and the Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” This change also clarifies
that this section is only applicable to “housing applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to
state statute.”
The changes to EC 9.8220 also relate to COM-01 (Needed Housing Criterion) as they remove subsection (1), the
requirement to demonstrate that housing is ‘needed housing,’ consistent with the state law requirement that
proposals including housing, not just “needed housing,” are entitled to clear and objective approval criteria. May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 22 of 32
(21)The proposed partition complies with all of the following:
(a)[Lot standards of]EC 9.2000 through [9.3980] 9.4170 regarding applicable
parcel dimensions and density requirements for the subject zone and
overlay zone. Within the /WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or
/WQ Water Quality Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33%
of the lot, as created, would be occupied by either:
* * *
(k)[EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal Standards.]
*Renumber remaining subsection*
*Renumber remaining subsections*
The change to subsection (a) is related to COM-04 (Overlay Zone Standards) as it would extend the range of the
referenced code sections to include all overlay zones.
The change to subsection (k) is related to COS-10 (Partition Tree Preservation) and proposes removal of the
criterion.
[(4) Partitions abutting collector and arterial streets comply with access management
guidelines of the agency having jurisdiction over the street.]*Renumber remaining
subsections*
This removal of subsection (4) is related to COM-07 (Access Management Requirement) and would eliminate
the criterion (this criterion is redundant and unnessessary as other jurisdictional agencies already have authority
to require compliance with their guidelines).
(53)If the provisions of EC 9.8220(2) require a public street, or if the applicant proposes
the creation of a public street, the following criteria also apply:
* * *
[(c) The street layout of the proposed partition shall disperse motor vehicle traffic
onto more than one public local street when the sum of proposed partition
parcels and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the single means of
ingress and egress exceeds 19.]
(4) The applicant has submitted a letter from the Eugene/Springfield Fire
Marshal's office stating that the proposed partition complies with the
applicable Eugene Fire Code (2014) requirements regarding fire apparatus
access roads and fire protection water supply, or will comply subject to
conditions of approval that are specified in the letter.
The changes above are related to COS-14 (19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal) and COS-08 (Emergency
Response. The proposed replacement of subsection (c), with the new criterion at subsection (4) that would
require a letter from the Fire Marshal’s office, is necessary as the Land Use Board of Appeals determined that
subsection (c) is not clear and objective.
9.8310 Tentative Planned Unit Development General Application Requirements.
(5)[Needed] Housing. If the proposal includes [needed housing, as defined by State
statutes] housing, the written statement submitted with the PUD application shall
clearly state whether the applicant is proceeding under: (a)[electing to use] the
[general] approval criteria in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development
Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary; or (b) [instead of] the approval criteriaMay 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 23 of 32
[found] in EC 9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria-
[Needed] Housing/Clear and Objective.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” It also replaces the term “needed
housing” with “housing,” consistent with the state law requirement that proposals including housing, not just
“needed housing,” are entitled to clear and objective approval criteria.
9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary. The
hearings official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a tentative PUD
application with findings and conclusions. Decisions approving an application, or
approving with conditions, shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
9.8325 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria – [Needed] Housing/Clear
and Objective. Unless the applicant elects to use the discretionary criteria
contained in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria-
General/Discretionary, for housing applications entitled to clear and objective
review pursuant to state statute, Tthe hearings official shall approve, conditionally
approve, or deny the PUD application [with findings and conclusions. Unless the applicant
elects to use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8320 Tentative Planned Unit
Development Approval Criteria –General, where the applicant proposes needed housing,
as defined by the State statutes, the hearings official shall approve or approve with
conditions, a PUD] based on compliance with the following criteria:
These changes are related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revise code references to the currently
named General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary”
and the Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” This change also clarifies
that this section is only applicable to “housing applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to
state statute.”
(1)The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as
defined by state statutes.] The proposal complies with EC 9.5860 Transition
Standards.
This change implements COS-01 (Clear & Objective Compatibility). The replacement text points to proposed
new transistion standards. For ease of use and code efficiency (as the standards will apply to three application
types), the new transition standards are proposed to be located under EC 9.5860 Transition Standards for
Housing/Clear and Objective Applications. Applicability is clear as the approval criteria for each of the three
application types will include a criterion requiring compliance with the transition standards. In addition, the
transition standards start with an applicability statement that identifies the three application types and
proposed uses subject to the standards.
(3)[The PUD provides a buffer area between the proposed development and
surrounding properties by providing at least a 30 foot wide landscape area along
the perimeter of the PUD according to EC 9.6210(7).] May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 24 of 32
*Renumber remaining subsections.*
The removal of subsection (3) from the Tentative PUD approval criteria implements COS-02 (30-Foot Buffer
Requirement for PUDs). The 30-foot buffer criterion is being replaced by the proposed new transition standards
under EC 9.5860 Transition Standards for Housing/Clear and Objective Applications. See related issue COS-01
and proposed language at EC 9.5860.
(43)For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the PUD
preserves existing natural resources by compliance with [all of the following:
(a)T]the provisions of EC 9.6880 to EC 9.6885 Tree Preservation and Removal
Standards, [(not subject to modifications set forth in subsection (11) below)].
[(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as
“Natural Resource” are protected.]
This change is related to COM-09 (Natural Resource Protection Requirement). The proposed change revises the
criterion to remove subsection (b) per the recommendation outlined in the Draft Preferred Concepts Report.
(5)[There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet
or exceed 20% slope.]
*Renumber remaining subsections.*
The removal of subsection (5) from the Tentative PUD approval criteria implements COS-03 (20 Percent Slope
Grading Prohibition). Slope stability in the context of road layout and lot locations will be addressed under the
revised geotechnical requirement (see related issue COS-13 and proposed revisions at EC 9.6710).
(64)The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation systems through compliance
with all of the following:
* * *
[(c) The street layout of the proposed PUD shall disperse motor vehicle traffic onto
more than one public local street when the PUD exceeds 19 lots or when the
sum of proposed PUD lots and the existing lots utilizing a local street as the
single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19.]
This change is related to COS-14 (19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal) and COS-08 (Emergency Response).
The proposed replacement of (c) with the new criterion at subsection (9) below, that would require a letter
from the Fire Marshal’s office, is necessary as the Land Use Board of Appeals determined that (c) is not clear
and objective.
(75)The PUD complies with all of the following:
(a)EC 9.2000 through [9.3980] EC 9.4170 regarding applicable lot dimensions
and density requirements for the subject zone and overlay zone. Within the
/WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality
Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as
created, would be occupied by either:
* * *
(k)All applicable development standards explicitly addressed in the
application.
An approved adjustment to a standard pursuant to the provisions beginning at EC
9.8015 of this land use code constitutes compliance with the standard.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 25 of 32
The change to subsection (a) is related to COM-04 (Overlay Zone Standards) as it would extend the range of the
referenced code sections to include all overlay zones.
The addition of subsection (k) is related to COM-05 (Planned Unit Development Adjustment/Modification). The
proposed change would remove the modification allowance currently allowed under existing subsection (11)
below (text to be deleted), but retain the ability to use approved adjustments to show compliance with
applicable standards.
(97)[All proposed dwellings within the PUD are within 1/4 mile radius (measured from
any point along the perimeter of the development site) of an accessible recreation
area or open space that is at least 1 acre in size and will be available to residents.]
PUDs proposed on development sites that are two acres or larger must
comply with either subsection (a) or subsection (b) below:
(a)The PUD is located within 1/2-mile of a public park, public recreation
facility, or public school (determined using the shortest distance as
measured along a straight line between a point along the perimeter of the
development site and a point along a property line of a public park,
public recreation facility, or public school); or
(b)Except as provided in EC 9.8325(8)(b)1, the PUD shall provide common
open space within the development site equal to a minimum of 10
percent of the development site or 14,500 square feet, whichever is
greater.
1.If the PUD includes lot areas smaller than the minimum lot area
allowed in the base zone, then common open space must be
provided as follows:
a.If the average lot area is within 10 percent of the minimum lot
area of the base zone, then the PUD shall provide common
open space within the development site equal to a minimum of
15 percent of the development site or 14,500 square feet,
whichever is greater.
b.If the average lot area is more than 10 percent below the
minimum lot area of the base zone, then the PUD shall provide
common open space within the development site equal to a
minimum of 20 percent of the development site or 14,500
square feet, whichever is greater.
2.Common open space shall be provided in one separate tract of
land, except that developments providing more than 29,000 square
feet of common open space may include up to three common open
space tracts provided no tract is less than 14,500 square feet..
3.Ownership of the common open space tract(s) must be dedicated to
all lot or parcel owners within the development site.
4.Each common open space tract must include a portion with
minimum dimensions of 70 feet by 70 feet.
5.Common open space tracts must have a minimum of 20 feet of lot
frontage along an existing or proposed public way or private street.
6.Common open space tracts do not have to meet lot standards.
The above changes to the Tentative PUD approval criteria implement COS-04 (One Acre Assessible Open Space
for PUDs). The first change revises the required distance from existing public open space from ¼ mile to ½ mile
distance. The remaining revisions implement a scalable on-site open space requirement so that more common
open space is required for PUDs proposing to reduce lot area below the minimum base zone standard, and
clarify common open space requirements.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 26 of 32
(108) Lots proposed for development with one-family detached dwellings shall comply
with EC 9.2790 Solar Lot Standards [(these standards may be modified as set forth
in subsection (11) below)].
This change is related to COM-05 (Planned Unit Development Adjustment/Modification). The proposed change
removes the modification allowance currently allowed under existing subsection (11) below (text to be deleted).
Exceptions and exemptions to these requirements are already allowed per EC 9.2790(3) and (4).
(119) [The PUD complies with all applicable development standards explicitly addressed in
the application except where the applicant has shown that a modification is
consistent with the purposes as set out in EC 9.8300 Purpose of Planned Unit
Development.] The applicant has submitted a letter from the Eugene/Springfield
Fire Marshal's office stating that the proposed development complies with the
applicable Eugene Fire Code (2014) requirements regarding fire apparatus
access roads and fire protection water supply, or will comply subject to
conditions of approval that are specified in the letter.
This change is related to COS-14 (19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal) and COS-08 (Emergency Response).
The proposed replacement of (6)(c) above with this new criterion at subsection (9), that would require a letter
from the Fire Marshal’s office, is necessary as the Land Use Board of Appeals determined that subsection (6)(c)
is not clear and objective.
(1210)For any PUD located within or partially within the boundaries of the South Hills
Study, the following additional approval criteria apply:
(a)[No development shall occur on land above an elevation of 900 feet except
that one dwelling may be built on any lot in existence as of August 1, 2001.]
Development on any portion of the development site located above 900
feet elevation is limited by the following:
1.The sum of all building area, measured using building footprints,
shall not exceed 5,000 square feet on proposed new lots or parcels.
2.Driveways shall not exceed 20 feet in width on proposed new lots or
parcels.
The removal of existing subsection (a) from the Tentative PUD approval criterion implements COS -05 (Limitation
Over 900 Feet for PUDs). The change replaces the former limitation of one dwelling with the new density limit
under subsection (c)(4) below. The proposed new language adds new limitations to reduce the impacts of
development and protect the area above 900 feet elevation from an “intensive level of development”
consistent with the South Hills Study.
(b)Development on any portion of the development site located above 900
feet elevation shall be setback at least 300 feet from the ridgeline unless
there is a determination by the city manager that the area is not needed as a
connection to the city’s ridgeline trail system. For purposes of this section, the
ridgeline [trail] shall be considered as the line indicated as being the urban
growth boundary [within the South Hills Study plan area].
This revision implements COS-06 (Ridgeline Setback for PUDs). The change clarifies that the setback will now
only apply to portions of the development site located above 900 feet elevation and removes redundant
language.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 27 of 32
(c)[Development shall cluster buildings in an arrangement that results in at least
40% of the development site being retained in 3 or fewer contiguous common
open space areas. For purposes of this section, the term contiguous open
space means open space that is uninterrupted by buildings, structures,
streets, or other improvements.]
*Renumber remaining subsections.*
The removal of subsection (c) implements COS-07 (40% Open Space Requirement for PUDs). The intent is to
instead rely on other existing regulations for lot coverage and on-site open space provisions.
(dc)Residential density is limited as follows:
1.In the area west of Friendly Street, the maximum level of new
development per gross acre shall be 8 units per acre.
2.In the area east of Friendly Street, the maximum level of new
development per gross acre shall be limited to 5 units per acre.
3.Housing developed as Controlled Income and Rent Housing shall be
exempt from the density limitations in subsections 1 and 2 above, but
are subject to the other applicable development standards and review
procedures.
4.For any portion of the development site located above 900 feet
elevation, the maximum density shall be 2.5 units per gross acre,
or one dwelling per legal lot in existence as of August 1, 2001,
whichever is greater.
The addition of subsection 4. implements COS-05 (Limitation Over 900 Feet for PUDs). The change adds a new
density restriction for any portion of the development site located above 900 feet elevation.
9.8360 Planned Unit Development, Final Plan Application Requirements. In addition to the
provisions in EC 9.7010 Application Filing, the following specific requirements apply to
PUD final plan applications:
* * *
[(4) Public improvements as required by this land use code or as a condition of tentative
plan approval have been completed, or:
(a)A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city has
been filed with the city finance officer in an amount sufficient to assure the
completion of all required public improvements; or
(b)A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the real property
for the improvements has been signed by the property owner seeking the
subdivision, and the petition has been accepted by the city engineer.]
9.8365 Final Planned Unit Development Approval Criteria. The planning director shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a final PUD application, based on compliance
with the following criteria:[. Approval shall include a finding that the final PUD plan
conforms with the approved tentative PUD plan and all conditions attached thereto.]
(1)The final PUD plan conforms with the approved tentative PUD plan and all
conditions attached thereto.
(2) For final PUDs not associated with a land division, public improvements as
required by this land use code or as a condition of tentative plan approval will
be completed prior to issuance of a development permit, or:
(a)A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city
has been filed with the city finance officer in an amount sufficient to
assure the completion of all required public improvements; or
(b)A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the realMay 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 28 of 32
property for the improvements has been signed by the property owner
seeking the subdivision, and the petition has been accepted by the city
engineer.
These changes relate to COM-03 (Bonding Requirement). The proposed changes would remove this
requirement from application requirements and add the requirement to approval criteria.
9.8440 Site Review Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary. The planning director shall
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the site review application. Approval or
conditional approval shall be based on compliance with the following criteria:
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General approval criteria. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
9.8445 Site Review Approval Criteria- [Needed] Housing/Clear and Objective. Unless the
applicant elects to use the discretionary criteria contained in EC 9.8440 Site Review
Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary, for housing applications entitled to clear
and objective review pursuant to state statute, [T]the planning director shall approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the site review application. [Unless the applicant elects to
use the general criteria contained in EC 9.8440 Site Review Approval Criteria – General,
where the applicant proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the
planning director shall approve, or approve with conditions, a site review] based on
compliance with the following criteria:
These changes are related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revise code references to the currently
named General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary”
and the Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” This change also clarifies
that this section is only applicable to “housing applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to
state statute.”
(1)[The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as
defined by state statutes.] The proposal complies with EC 9.5860 Transition
Standards.
This change implements COS-01 (Clear & Objective Compatibility). The replacement text points to proposed
new transistion standards. For ease of use and code efficiency (as the standards will apply to three application
types), the new transition standards are proposed to be located under EC 9.5860 Transition Standards for
Housing/Clear and Objective Applications. Applicability is clear as the approval criteria for each of the three
application types will include a criterion requiring compliance with the transition standards. In addition, the
transition standards start with an applicability statement that identifies the three application types and
proposed uses subject to the standards.
(3)For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the proposal
will preserve existing natural resources by compliance with [all of the following:
(a)The proposal complies with] the provisions of EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885
Tree Preservation and Removal Standards.
[(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as
“Natural Resource” are protected.]
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 29 of 32
This change is related to COM-09 (Natural Resource Protection Requirement). The proposed change revises the
criterion to remove subsection (b) per the recommendation outlined in the Draft Preferred Concepts Report.
(4) The proposal complies with all of the following [standards]:
(a) EC 9.2000 through [9.3980] EC 9.4170 regarding applicable lot dimensions
and density requirements for the subject zone and overlay zone.
(b) EC 9.6800 through EC 9.6875 Standards for Streets, Alleys, and Other
Public Ways.
*Renumber remaining subsections*
The change to subsection (a) is related to COM-04 (Overlay Zone Standards) as it would extend the range of the
referenced code sections to include all overlay zones.
The proposed addition of subsection (b) is related to COM-13 (Site Review Street Standards).
(5) Public improvements as required by this land use code or as a condition of [tentative
plan] approval will be [have been] completed prior to issuance of a development
permit, or:
(a) A performance bond or suitable substitute as agreed upon by the city has
been filed with the city finance officer in an amount sufficient to assure the
completion of all required public improvements; or
(b) A petition for public improvements and for the assessment of the real property
for the improvements has been signed by the property owner seeking the
subdivision, and the petition has been accepted by the city engineer.
This change is related to COM-03 (Bonding Requirement). The proposed change revises the timing of the
requirement for completion or bonding of public improvements to prior to issuance of a development permit.
(6) If the standards addressed under EC 9.8100(4) require a public street, or if
the applicant proposes the creation of a public street, the proposal will
provide pedestrian and bicycle circulation to adjacent residential areas,
transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, parks, schools, commercial
centers, office parks, and industrial parks located within ¼ mile radius of the
development site, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate
consistency with constitutional requirements.
This change is related to COM-16 (Off-Site Bike/Ped Connections). The proposed change adds a requirement
that already applies to partitions, subdivisions, and planned unit developments. Minor revision to add clarity to
the requirement has also been proposed.
(7) The applicant has submitted a letter from the Eugene/Springfield Fire
Marshal's office stating that the proposed development complies with the
applicable Eugene Fire Code (2014) requirements regarding fire apparatus
access roads and fire protection water supply, or will comply subject to
conditions of approval.
This change is related to COS-08 (Emergency Response. The proposed criterion would require a letter from the
Fire Marshal’s office to address Emergency Response concerns regarding fire apparatus access and fire
protection water supply.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 30 of 32
9.8505 Applicability of Subdivision, Tentative Plan Applications.
Requests to create 4 or more lots shall be subject to the subdivision provisions of this land
use code under a Type II application process.
(1)A tentative plan application to subdividesion land may be submitted and
reviewed concurrently with the [application that also involves a PUD request may
not be submitted until a decision on the] tentative PUD application following a
Type III application procedure [approval is final]. If a subdivision application
that also involves a PUD request is not submitted concurrently with the
tentative PUD, the subdivision application may not be submitted until a
tentative PUD is approved. (Refer to EC 9.8305 Applicability.)
(2)If the subdivision tentative plan application is not reviewed concurrently with
the tentative PUD, Nno development permit shall be issued by the city prior to
approval of the tentative subdivision tentative plan application. If the tentative
subdivision is reviewed concurrently with a PUD application, no development
permit shall be issued by the city prior to approval of the final PUD
application.
This change is related to COM-11 (PUD/Subdivision Concurrent Review). The proposed revisions would allow
concurrent review of tentative subdivision applications when the proposal also involves a PUD.
9.8510 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Application Requirements. In addition to the provisions in
EC 9.7010 Application Filing, the following specific requirements shall apply to tentative
subdivision plan applications:
* * *
(5)If the proposal includes [needed housing, as defined by State statutes] housing, the
written statement submitted with the subdivision application shall clearly state
whether the applicant is electing to use the [general] discretionary approval criteria
in EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary
instead of the approval criteria found in EC 9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan
Approval Criteria- [Needed] Housing/Clear and Objective.
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary” and the
Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” It also replaces the term “needed
housing” with “housing,” consistent with the state law requirement that proposals including housing, not just
“needed housing,” are entitled to clear and objective approval criteria.
9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary. The planning
director shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a proposed subdivision.
Approval, or approval with conditions shall be based on compliance with the following
criteria:
* * *
(2)Approval does not impede the future best use of the remainder of the property under
the same ownership or adversely affect the development of the remainder or any
adjoining land or access thereto, based on the provisions of this land use code. For
subdivisions involving phasing, it shall be demonstrated that each sequential phase
will maintain consistency with the provisions of EC 9.8515 Tentative Subdivision
Approval Criteria – General/Discretionary.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 31 of 32
This change is related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revises code references to the currently named
General track. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary.”
9.8520 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria – [Needed] Housing/Clear and
Objective. Unless the applicant elects to use the discretionary criteria contained in
EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria- General/Discretionary, for
housing applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to state
statute, Tthe planning director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the
subdivision application. [Unless the applicant elects to use the general criteria contained
in EC 9.8515 Subdivision, Tentative Plan Approval Criteria-General, where the applicant
proposes needed housing, as defined by the State statutes, the planning director shall
approve or approve with conditions a subdivision] based on compliance with the following
criteria:
[(1) The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed housing is needed housing as
defined by State statutes.] *Renumber remaining subsections*
These changes are related to COM-12 (Review Track Renaming) and revise code references to the currently
named General and Needed Housing tracks. The General track is proposed to be called “General/Discretionary”
and the Needed Housing track is proposed to be called “Housing/Clear and Objective.” This change also clarifies
that this section is only applicable to “housing applications entitled to clear and objective review pursuant to
state statute.”
The changes also relate to COM-01 (Needed Housing Criterion) as they remove subsection (1), the requirement
to demonstrate that housing is ‘needed housing,’ consistent with the state law requirement that proposals
including housing, not just “needed housing,” are entitled to clear and objective approval criteria.
(32) The proposed subdivision complies with all of the following, unless specifically
exempt from compliance through a code provision applicable to a special area zone
or overlay zone:
(a) EC 9.2000 through [9.3980] EC 9.4170 regarding applicable lot dimensions
and density requirements for the subject zone and overlay zone. Within the
/WR Water Resources Conservation Overlay Zone or /WQ Water Quality
Overlay Zone, no new lot may be created if more than 33% of the lot, as
created, would be occupied by either:
The change to subsection (a) is related to COM-04 (Overlay Zone Standards) as it would extend the range of the
referenced code sections to include all overlay zones.
(5) [There shall be no proposed grading on portions of the development site that meet
or exceed 20% slope.]
*Renumber remaining subsections.*
The removal of subsection (5) from the tentative subdivision approval critiera implements COS -03 (20 Percent
Slope Grading Prohibition). Slope stability in the context of road layout and lot locations will be addressed under
the revised geotechnical requirement (see related issue COS-13 and revisions at EC 9.6710).
(64) The proposed subdivision provides [safe and adequate transportation systems
through compliance with the following:] for the
[(a) P] provision of pedestrian, bicycle and transit circulation among buildings
located within the development site, as well as to adjacent and nearby
residential areas, transit stops, neighborhood activity centers, office parks, and May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2
May 7, 2019 Clear & Objective Update – Draft Land Use Code Language Page 32 of 32
industrial parks, provided the city makes findings to demonstrate consistency
with constitutional requirements. “Nearby” means uses within 1/4 mile that can
reasonably be expected to be used by pedestrians, and uses within 2 miles
that can reasonably be expected to be used by bicyclists.
[(b) The street layout of the proposed subdivision shall disperse motor vehicle
traffic onto more than one public local street when the subdivision exceeds 19
lots or when the sum of proposed subdivision lots and the existing lots utilizing
a local street as the single means of ingress and egress exceeds 19.]
This change is related to COS-14 (19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal) and COS-08 (Emergency Response).
The proposed replacement of subsection (b) with the new criterion at subsection (10) below, that would require
a letter from the Fire Marshal’s office, is necessary as the Land Use Board of Appeals determined that
subsection (b) is not clear and objective.
(75)For areas not included on the city’s acknowledged Goal 5 inventory, the subdivision
will preserve existing natural resources by compliance with [all of the following:
(a)The proposal complies with] the provisions of EC 9.6880 through EC 9.6885
Tree Preservation and Removal Standards.
[(b) Natural resource areas designated on the comprehensive plan diagram as
“Natural Resource.”]
This change is related to COM-09 (Natural Resource Protection Requirement). The proposed change revises the
criterion to remove subsection (b) per the recommendation outlined in the Draft Preferred Concepts Report.
(9) The applicant has submitted a letter from the Eugene/Springfield Fire Marshal's
office stating that the proposed subdivision complies with the applicable
Eugene Fire Code (2014) requirements regarding fire apparatus access roads
and fire protection water supply, or will comply subject to conditions of
approval.
This change is related to COS-14 (19 Lot Rule—Motor Vehicle Dispersal) and COS-08 (Emergency Response).
The proposed replacement of subsection (6)(b) above with this new criterion at subsection (9), that would
require a letter from the Fire Marshal’s office, is necessary as the Land Use Board of Appeals determined that
(6)(b) is not clear and objective.
May 20, 2019, Work Session – Item 2