HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3: Ordinance Concerning Jefferson/Far West Plan Amendments
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan Land Use Diagram and the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Land Use
Diagram and Text; Amending Section 9.9580 of the Eugene Code, 1971; Adopting a
Severability Clause; Providing an Effective Date; and Providing a Sunset Date
(Jefferson/Far West, MA 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1)
Meeting Date: February 20, 2007 Agenda Item Number: 3
Department: Planning and Development Staff Contact: Terri Harding
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5635
ISSUE STATEMENT
This proposal would amend the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan Land Use Diagram
(Metro Plan), amend the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan and amend the Eugene Code for a portion
of the Jefferson neighborhood known as “Area 15” in the refinement plan (see Attachment A, Exhibits
A and B). Approval would cause the area to be designated for Low Density Residential development.
In accordance with the City Council’s September 11, 2006, motion on this topic, the proposal includes a
sunset clause that would change the area back to its current land use designations on July 1, 2008, unless
further action is taken by the council.
BACKGROUND
In 2004, the City Council adopted a series of 'Housekeeping' amendments to the Metro Plan, one of
which was an attempt to reconcile the subject area’s Metro Plan designation with its Refinement Plan
designation and policy description by changing the area from Low Density to Medium Density
Residential on the Metro Plan diagram. Once this change became effective, Jefferson Westside
Neighbors (JWN) leaders approached the City Council for solutions to what they felt was the threat of
too much, inappropriately designed infill development allowed if properties were designated Medium
Density Residential and thus eligible for rezoning to R-2. The City Council reviewed several options to
address the concern, and decided to initiate the subject amendments to change both the Metro Plan and
the Refinement Plan to Low Density Residential. At their September 11, 2006, meeting, the following
motion was passed:
“I move to initiate amendment of the Metro Plan, the JFW Refinement Plan and the
Land Use Code to limit the subject area to Low Density Residential development. In
addition, direct the City Manager to make this one task one of the high priority tasks on
the Planning Commission work plan and to accomplish this as quickly as practicable
within the parameters of the amendment process. Unless council takes further action
with regard to the subject area, the subject area shall revert to allow Low- to Medium-
Density Residential development on July 1, 2008.“
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702203.doc
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments on December 5, 2006. The record
was held open until December 12. On January 8, the Planning Commission deliberated and
unanimously recommended approval for the reasons outlined in the attached findings (Attachment A,
Exhibit C). With regard to the boundaries of the area recommended for re-designation, the Planning
Commission notes that the reasoning for the recommendation differs between the portion of Area 15
north of the Amazon Channel and the portion south of the Amazon Channel. Since at least 1982, the
Metro Plan diagram has shown the area north of the channel as designated for Medium Density
Residential development. The area south of the channel was designated Low Density Residential.
When the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan was adopted in 1983, it created Area 15, which includes
land on both sides of the channel, and designated it Low-Medium Density Residential. See Exhibit A
for the location of the Amazon channel in the neighborhood.
In 2006, the Metro Plan Housekeeping Amendments became effective, changing the designation of the
area south of the channel to Medium Density Residential in an effort to align with the refinement plan’s
Low-Medium Density Residential designation and policy direction to allow greater than 10 units per
acre in Area 15 under certain circumstances.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendments for the entirety of Area 15. The
commission notes that changing the Metro Plan designation north of the Amazon channel goes beyond
reversing the action taken by the Housekeeping amendments. This change is justified by the treatment
of the entire area as one in the refinement plan, and the similar physical characteristics of development
north and south of the channel in Area 15.
A second issue to which the Planning Commission wishes to call to the council’s attention is the
proposed sunset clause. The commission supports the notion of the ordinance expiring, in recognition
that the City’s infill compatibility standards project aims to develop code standards that would make a
Low-Medium Density designation acceptable in this area. The commission notes that the sunset clause
should be written to describe specifically what happens to the area when the ordinance expires. In other
words, it should be called out that both areas north and south of the Amazon would revert to Medium
Density Residential on the Metro Plan and Low-Medium Density Residential on the refinement plan
diagram. Should the institution of infill compatibility standards take longer than expected (past the July
1, 2008, expiration date of the sunset clause), the Planning Commission recommends that the council
review the progress of the infill compatibility standards process to determine whether it is appropriate to
extend the ordinance. Section 10 of the attached ordinance states that the entire area would revert back
to existing plan designations on the sunset date, unless the council takes further action.
A third issue that received substantial public testimony and discussion by the Planning Commission is
the applicability of the Growth Management Policies (GMP). Consistent with past practice, the GMP
a
were not considered applicable to the land use decisions at hand. However, the issues and policy ideas
expressed in the GMP are very relevant to these applications, especially concerning infill, neighborhood
character, residential density, and compact development patterns. The Planning Commission wishes to
further its discussion with the council about how the GMPs should relate to land use decision-making.
a
Section 3.
The Growth Management Policies adopting language reads, “Resolution 4554 The policies adopted by Section 1
shall not be used in determining whether the City shall approve or deny individual land use applications. Instead, the policies
will be implemented through the Council’s actions in amending the Eugene Code, 1971, and in actions other than code
changes such as adopting the City budget and capital improvement program.”
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702203.doc
The Measure 37 impacts of this ordinance are unknown. It is possible that claims could be made by
owners of property that is now designated Medium Density Residential, and thus eligible for R-2
zoning, if the City changes the designation to Low Density Residential, thereby restricting the eligibility
for R-2. In general, all new regulations that restrict land use have the potential to be the basis for such
claims.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
Numerous Metro Plan and Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Policies apply to the proposal and are
part of the applicable review criteria addressed in the preliminary findings (Attachment A, Exhibit C).
COUNCIL OPTIONS
There are no council options to consider at this time. Eugene Code requires a public hearing before the
City Council on Metro Plan Amendments, Refinement Plan Amendments, and Code Amendments. The
council initiated the proposed amendments by motion on September 11, 2006. City Council options will
be prepared when the item is scheduled for action.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council take testimony on this item at a public hearing, per
the process requirements of the Eugene Code. The item is scheduled for action on March 12, 2007.
SUGGESTED MOTION
There is no suggested motion as this is a public hearing only. Suggested motion language will be
prepared for the scheduled March 12 action agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Ordinance with Exhibits
B. Planning Commission Hearing Record
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Terri Harding
Telephone: 682-5635
Staff E-Mail: terri.l.harding@ci.eugene.or.us
L:\CMO\2007 Council Agendas\M070220\S0702203.doc
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE EUGENE-SPRINGFIELD METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM AND THE JEFFERSON/FAR
WEST REFINEMENT PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM AND TEXT; AMENDING
SECTION 9.9580OF THE EUGENE CODE, 1971; ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING A SUNSET
DATE. (JEFFERSON/FAR WEST, MA 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1)
The City Council of the City of Eugene finds that:
A.
On September 11, 2006, the Eugene City Council initiated amendments to
the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan land use diagram, the
Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan land use diagram and text, and the Eugene Code,
1971, to temporarily limit a specified area in the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan to
Low Density Residential development.
B.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendments
contained in this Ordinance on December 5, 2006, and has forwarded its
recommendations to the City Council for amendments to the Metropolitan Plan land use
diagram, the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan land use diagram and text, and the
Eugene Code, 1971, which have been incorporated herein.
THE CITY OF EUGENE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (“Metro
Plan”) land use diagram is amended for the portion of the Jefferson neighborhood
known as “Area 15” in the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan (located south of West
thth
13 Avenue, east of the Lane County Fairgrounds, and north of West 18 Avenue,
having an eastern boundary following portions of Lincoln Alley, Charnelton Alley, and
Willamette Alley), by changing the Metro Plan designation for that area from a
designation of Medium Density Residential to a designation of Low Density Residential,
as shown on the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein.
Section 2.
The Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan land use diagram located
on page 18 of the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan is amended for the portion of the
Jefferson neighborhood as described in Section 1 to change its designation of Low-
Medium Density Residential to a designation of Low Density Residential as shown on
the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein.
Section 3.
The Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan text is amended by
changing the heading and revising the policies under Section 15 of the Jefferson
Residential Areas section of that Plan as follows:
15. [Low- to Medium-Density Residential Area]
Low-Density
Residential Area
This area shall be recognized as a low-[to medium-]density residential
area. The City shall explore methods of encouraging an increase in
residential density yet maintaining the character of the area. [Residential
densities beyond ten units per acre shall be allowed, subject to an
approved block plan or rezonging to R-2 in conjunction with site review.]
The City shall encourage block planning, infilling, and shared housing, in
this area. Access to housing units off of alleys shall be accommodated
when not in conflict with other policies and goals.
The City shall encourage the rehabilitation of the existing housing stock
through both public and private reinvestments.
Section 4.
Subsection (17) of Section 9.9580 of the Eugene Code, 1971, is
amended to provide:
9.9580 Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan Policies.
(17) Land Use Element, Jefferson, Residential Areas, Low[-to-
Medium-] Density Residential Area.
This area shall be recognized as a
low[- to medium-]density residential area. The City shall explore methods
of encouraging an increase in residential density yet maintaining the
character of the area. [Residential densities beyond ten units per acre
shall be allowed, subject to an approved block plan or rezoning to R-2 in
conjunction with site review.] The City shall encourage block planning,
infilling, and shared housing, in this area. Access to housing units off of
alleys shall be accommodated when not in conflict with other policies and
goals. The City shall encourage the rehabilitation of the existing housing
stock through both public and private reinvestments.
Section 5.
Except as amended in Sections 2 and 3 of this Ordinance, all other
provisions of the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan as adopted by Resolution No.
3739 on January 12, 1983, and amended by Ordinance No. 20180 on November 22,
1999, remain in full force and effect.
Section 6.
The findings set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto are adopted as
findings in support of this Ordinance.
Section 7.
The City Recorder, at the request of, or with the concurrence of the
City Attorney, is authorized to administratively correct any reference errors contained
herein or in other provisions of the Eugene Code, 1971, to the provisions added,
amended or repealed herein.
Section 8.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this
Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof.
Section 9.
Notwithstanding the effective date of ordinances as provided in the
Eugene Charter of 2002, this Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from the date of
its passage by the City Council and approval by the Mayor, or upon the date of its
acknowledgment as provided by ORS 197.625, whichever date is later.
Section 10
. This Ordinance will be automatically repealed effective midnight on
July 1, 2008, unless prior to that date the City Council has either amended this
Ordinance to extend its effective date or repealed this Ordinance. Upon repeal of this
Ordinance, the area depicted on Exhibits A and B shall return to the Medium Density
Residential Metro Plan designation and to the Low-Medium Density Residential
designation on the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan land use diagram, and the
language deleted by this Ordinance from the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan
Residential Area Policy 15 shall be restored in both the Jefferson/Far West Refinement
Plan and in Section 9.9580(17) of the Eugene Code, 1971.
Passed by the City Council this Approved by the Mayor this
____ day of ______________, 2007. ____ day of _____________, 2007.
_______________________________ _______________________________
City Recorder Mayor
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
DRAFT Planning CommissionFindings
MA 06-05, RA 06-03, CA 06-01
Metro Plan Diagram Amendments Eugene Code Section 9.7730(3) requires that the
following criteria (in bold and italics) be applied to a Metro Plan diagram amendment:
(a) The amendment must be consistent with the relevant Statewide Planning Goals adopted by
the Land Conservation and Development Commission; and
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The City has acknowledged provisions for citizen involvement that ensure the opportunity for
citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process and set out requirements for such
involvement. The requested action does not amend the citizen involvement program. The
process for reviewing these amendments complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and
surpasses the requirements of, the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
The City of Eugene land use code implements Statewide Planning Goal 1 by requiring that
notice of the proposed amendments be given and public hearings be held prior to adoption.
Consideration of the amendments began with a City of Eugene Planning Commission public
hearing on December 5, 2006. On October 20, 2006, the City mailed notice of the proposed plan
amendments to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, as required by the
Eugene Code and in accordance with State statutes. On November 2, 2006, referrals concerning
the pending applications were sent to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), City of
Springfield, Lane County, the Jefferson-Westside Neighborhood Association and to City
departments, consistent with the Eugene Code. On November 3, 2006, notice of the Planning
Commission public hearing was mailed to the owners and occupants of the subject area, owners
and occupants of property within 500 feet of the subject area, Jefferson-Westside Neighborhood
Association, interested parties who requested notice, and other community organizations
requesting such notice, which is in excess of the requirements of the Eugene Code. On
November 15, 2006, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the
Register-Guard, in accordance with the Eugene Code. On November 3, 2006, notice was also
posted in accordance with EC 9.7415(5). In addition to public meetings and mailed notices,
printed materials related to these proceedings were made available at Planning and Development
Department offices. City staff also met with the Jefferson-Westside Neighborhood co-chairs to
provide information regarding the land use applications.
An additional public hearing before the Eugene City Council is scheduled for February 20, 2007.
Notice to interested and affected parties will be provided for that hearing.
The process for adopting these amendments complies with Goal 1 since it complies with, and
surpasses the requirements of the State’s citizen involvement provisions.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning: To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual
base for such decisions and actions.
The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is the policy tool that
provides a basis for decision-making in this area. The Metro Plan was acknowledged by the
State in 1982 to be in compliance with statewide planning goals. These findings and record
show that there is an adequate factual base for decisions to be made concerning the proposed
amendments. Goal 2 requires that plans be coordinated with the plans of affected governmental
units and that opportunities be provided for review and comment by affected governmental units.
To comply with the Goal 2 coordination requirement, the City coordinated the review of these
amendments with all affected governmental units. Specifically, notice was mailed to the State
Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Department of Transportation,
Lane County, and the City of Springfield. There are no Goal 2 exceptions required for these
amendments. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 2.
Goal 3 - Agricultural Land: To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Goal 3 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject area and actions do not affect any
agricultural plan designation or use. Goal 3 excludes lands inside an acknowledged urban
growth boundary from the definition of agricultural lands. Since the subject area is entirely
within the city’s acknowledged urban growth boundary, Goal 3 is not relevant and the
amendments do not affect the area’s compliance with Statewide Planning Goal 3.
Goal 4 - Forest Land: To conserve forest lands.
Goal 4 is not applicable to these amendments as the subject property and actions do not affect
any forest plan designation or use. Goal 4 does not apply within urban growth boundaries and,
therefore, does not apply to the subject property, which is within Eugene's UGB (OAR 660-006-
0020). Therefore, Goal 4 is not relevant and the amendments do not affect the area’s compliance
with Statewide Planning Goal 4.
Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources: To conserve open
space and protect natural and scenic resources.
The following administrative rule (OAR 660-023-0250) is applicable to this post-
acknowledgement plan amendment (PAPA) request:
(3) Local governments are not required to apply Goal 5 in consideration of a PAPA unless
the PAPA affects a Goal 5 resource. For purposes of this section, a PAPA would affect a
Goal 5 resource only if:
(a) The PAPA creates or amends a resource list or a portion of an acknowledged
plan or land use regulation adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5
resource or to address specific requirements of Goal 5;
(b) The PAPA allows new uses that could be conflicting uses with a particular
significant Goal 5 resource site on an acknowledged resource list; or
(c) The PAPA amends an acknowledged UGB and factual information is submitted
demonstrating that a resource site, or the impact areas of such a site, is included
in the amended UGB area.
The proposed amendments do not create or amend a list of Goal 5 resources, do not amend a
plan or code provision adopted in order to protect a significant Goal 5 resource or to address
specific requirements of Goal 5, and do not amend the acknowledged Urban Growth Boundary.
The subject area does include a Goal 5 resource site: Site E30 G, Lower Amazon Creek. The
Goal 5 regulations are implemented through an overlay zone that applies equally to the Low
Density Residential plan designation and the Medium Density Residential plan designation. The
amendments will not allow new uses that could conflict with the resource site, and will not
change the protected status of the resource or the level of protection currently applied.
Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 5 does not apply to these amendments.
Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality: To maintain and improve the quality of the air,
water, and land resources of the state.
Goal 6 addresses waste and process discharges from development, and is aimed at protecting air,
water and land from impacts from those discharges. Nothing in the proposal or the character of
the area or potential uses indicates future development that would compromise air, water and
land resources. The proposal does not amend the metropolitan area’s air, water quality or land
resource policies. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 6.
Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards: To protect life and property from
natural disasters and hazards.
Goal 7 requires that local government planning programs include provisions to protect people
and property from natural hazards such as floods, land slides, earthquakes and related hazards,
tsunamis and wildfires. The subject area includes areas of flood hazard identified on the FEMA
Flood Insurance Rate maps as AE, FW, and X5. No development is allowed in the FW
(floodway) area, which is limited to the channel of Amazon Creek itself. Property within the AE
and X5 areas is protected through regulations contained in the city’s site development standards
starting at EC 9.6705, and in the building code.
The area in question is not subject to hazards normally associated with steep slopes, wildfires, or
tsunamis. Other hazards, such as earthquakes and severe winter storms can be mitigated at the
time of development based on accepted building codes and building techniques. Therefore, these
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 7.
Goal 8 - Recreational Needs: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and
visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 8 ensures the provision of recreational facilities to Oregon citizens and is primarily
concerned with the provision of those facilities in non-urban areas of the state. The proposed
amendments will not impact the provision of public recreational facilities, nor will they affect
access to existing or future public recreational facilities. Therefore, the amendments are
consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8.
Goal 9 - Economic Development: To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a
variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon’s citizens.
The Administrative Rule for Statewide Planning Goal 9 (OAR 660, Division 9) requires cities to
evaluate the supply and demand of commercial land relative to community economic objects.
The Eugene Commercial Lands Study is acknowledged for compliance with the requirements of
Goal 9 and its Administrative Rule. Currently, the City of Eugene has a surplus of commercial
land. The subject plan amendments will not affect the supply of available commercial land. The
amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 9.
Goal 10 - Housing: To provide for the housing needs of the citizens of the state.
Goal 10 requires that communities plan for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential
land for needed housing units. The request to re-designate approximately 57 acres from Medium
Density Residential to Low Density Residential impacts the supply and availability of residential
1
lands, as the request will reduce the potential number of units that could be built in the area.
However, the subject area was not included in the documented supply of “buildable land”
available for residential development as inventoried in the acknowledged 1999 Residential Lands
2
Study. Therefore, the change will not affect the area’s acknowledged supply of residential land
and is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 10.
Although the area was not included in the 1999 inventory of supply, it has supplied additional
residential development worth noting. Since 1998, 12 new units were issued building permits in
the study area, including three duplexes, one single family home, and one five-unit row house.
Additional infill can be expected.
Under the existing Medium Density Residential designation, the subject area could be expected
to gradually infill over time. For example, 4 out of 36 parcels north of the channel are now
zoned R-2, having been rezoned over the last 20 years or so. In addition, the maximum buildout
potential was calculated for analysis purposes. Assuming rezoning to R-2, complete
redevelopment of the area would result in an estimated total potential for 1,085 dwelling units
(57 gross acres - .32 of area assumed to be devoted to nonresidential purposes = 38.76 net acres x
28 units per net acre = 1,085 units). The actual number could be higher depending on exact lot
sizes and the density round up provision contained in the land use code. For example, an 8,000
square foot lot zoned R-2 would allow 5.14 units at 28 units per acre, which can be rounded up
to 6 units per EC 9.2751(1)(c). At the other end of the density spectrum, the minimum required
1
Approval of these amendments will have the effect of returning the portion of the study area south of the Amazon
Channel to the buildout potential possible before the City Council adopted the Housekeeping Amendments to the Metro Plan, which
became effective February 8, 2006. The Housekeeping Amendments changed the Metro Plan designation of that portion south of
the Amazon from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential in order to bring the Metro Plan Designation into
alignment with the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan land use designation and policy text. The Council initiated the subject
amendments after neighborhood leaders questioned the appropriateness of the Medium Density Residential designation and its
correlation to the refinement plan policy text. The area north of the Amazon channel was designated Medium Density Residential
even prior to the Housekeeping Amendments. It is the policy recommendation of the Planning Commission to change this area to
Low Density Residential as well, primarily to keep Area 15 intact as a whole, as it is treated by the refinement plan. For additional
background on the options considered to address the issue, see Memo from Susan Muir to Eugene City Council dated May 24,
2006.
2
At the time the Residential Lands Study was completed, the majority of the subject area was designated Low Density
Residential by the Metro Plan and Low to Medium Density Residential by the refinement plan.
density, upon development or redevelopment, would be one unit (1.8 units allowed at 10 units
per acre).
Under the proposed Low Density Residential designation, zoning would remain as existing
(primarily R-1, with some R-2/SR and one R-3 parcel) and new units would likely be built on
vacant lots, as accessory dwelling units, or as redevelopment occurs over time. Assuming the
maximum allowable buildout over the study area, approximately 542 units could be allowed in
the study area (57 gross acres - .32 of area assumed to be devoted to nonresidential purposes =
38.76 net acres x 14 units per net acre = 542 units). The actual number could be higher
depending on exact lot sizes and the density round up provision contained in the land use code.
In this case, an 8,000 square foot lot zoned R-1 would allow 2.57 units at 14 units per acre,
which can be rounded up to 3 units per EC 9.2751(1)(c)(although three units would only be
allowed on an R-1 lot if it were designated a triplex lot on a subdivision plat).
The difference between the estimated maximum potential buildout under the Medium Density
Residential and Low Density Residential designations is approximately 543 units. However,
since the subject area was not included in the adopted inventory of buildable residential land
(other than a small amount of gradual infill development), the impact to that adopted inventory,
for planning purposes, is negligible. In addition, the Land Use Code was updated after the
adoption of the inventory, allowing increases in density across all residential zoning districts.
Finally, the practical reduction in potential units is likely overstated because the area is not
expected to be completely redeveloped in the next twenty years.
The above findings demonstrate that the proposed amendments are consistent with Statewide
Planning Goal 10.
Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services: To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The area affected by the amendments is located inside the city limits. The existing level of
public facilities and service is adequate to serve the needs of existing and future development.
Referral notices sent to service providers resulted in comments from Public Works staff
indicating that wastewater, transportation, and storm water facilities are adequate to serve either
medium density or low density development in the area.
The provision of these amendments does not affect the planning or development of future public
facilities or services. Therefore, the amendments are consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12 - Transportation: To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
Goal 12 is implemented through the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), as defined in Oregon
Administrative Rule OAR 660-012-0060. The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
Transportation Plan (TransPlan) provides the regional policy framework through which the TPR
is implemented at the local level. The TPR states that when land use changes, including
amendments to acknowledged comprehensive plans, significantly affect an existing or planned
transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures to assure that the
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity and performance standards
(level of service and/or volume to capacity ratio) of the facility.
Public works staff commented that “since this proposal is to limit development to R-1 uses,
eliminating the former provision that would have allowed an applicant to rezone parcels to R-2
and develop densities beyond ten units per acre, in accordance with OAR 660-012-0060(1)(a)
and (b), the proposed plan amendment would not change the functional classification of any
transportation facility, nor would it change the standards for implementing a functional
classification system.” In addition, the plan amendment would not allow levels of use that would
cause any transportation facility to exceed service standards. On the contrary, approval of the
amendments would reduce impacts to all transportation facilities.
The subject area is well served by bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Bicycle lanes exist on West
thth
18 Avenue and West 13 Avenue east of Lincoln Street, and bicycle routes exist on Olive
th
Street and West 15 Avenue. Lane Transit District serves the subject area with the #33
th th
Jefferson. In addition, numerous routes use West 13Avenue, West 18Avenue, and
Willamette Street.
Given the findings above, the proposal complies with Goal 12 as implemented through the
Transportation Planning Rule.
Goal 13 - Energy Conservation: To conserve energy.
The amendments do not specifically impact energy conservation. Therefore, Statewide Planning
Goal 13 does not apply.
Goal 14 - Urbanization: To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use.
The amendments do not effect the transition from rural to urban land use, as the subject property
is already within the City limits. Therefore, Statewide Planning Goal 14 does not apply.
Goal 15 - Willamette River Greenway: To protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the
Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway.
The subject property is not within the boundaries of the Willamette River Greenway. Therefore,
Statewide Planning Goal 15 does not apply.
Goal 16 through 19 - Estuarine Resources, Coastal Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean
Resources:
There are no coastal, ocean, estuarine, or beach and dune resources related to the area affected by
these amendments. Therefore, these goals are not relevant and the amendments will not affect
compliance with Statewide Planning Goals 16 through 19.
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally inconsistent.
The Metro Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 57 acres of land from Medium Density
Residential to Low Density Residential will not create an internal conflict with the remainder of
the Metro Plan. No text or other diagram changes are necessary to ensure internal consistency
with the proposed diagram amendments; adoption of this amendment will not make the Metro
Plan internally consistent.
The findings below demonstrate how the Metro Plan diagram amendment is consistent with the
policy direction contained in the Metro Plan. Policies found to be applicable to this request are
addressed below.
Residential Land Use and Housing Element
These amendments respond to concerns about inappropriate infill in a portion of the Jefferson-
Westside neighborhood. While the amendments will reduce potential density, on balance, the
amendments are consistent with the overall policy intent to address the impacts of increased
residential density on existing neighborhoods of historic character. Furthermore, other portions
of the Jefferson-Westside neighborhood will remain designated for medium and high density
residential uses.
Other Residential Land Use and Housing Element policies promote higher density development
within the urban core and where existing services and utilities are available (policies A.10, A.11,
and A.12). The proposed amendments can be found consistent with these policies when the
Jefferson-Westside neighborhood is considered as a whole. Portions of the neighborhood
accommodate some of the higher residential density projects in Eugene, including Lane Towers
and the Tate Building on Olive Street, and Willamette Towers on Lincoln Street.
Refinement Plan Amendments
Eugene Code Section 9.8424 requires that the following criteria
bold and italic
(in ) be applied to a Refinement Plan amendment.
(1)(a) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the Statewide planning goals.
The findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a), above, are incorporated herein by reference.
(1)(b) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the
Metro Plan.
Applicable provisions of the Metro Plan are evaluated under EC 9.7730(3)(b), above with
respect to the proposed refinement plan amendments and Metro Plan amendment. The proposed
refinement plan amendments are consistent with the applicable policies contained in the
Residential Land Use and Housing Element of the Metro Plan. The proposed refinement plan
land use diagram amendment from Low-Medium Density Residential to Low Density
Residential is consistent with the proposed Metro Plan land use diagram amendment from
Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential.
(1)(c) The refinement plan amendment is consistent with the remaining portions of the
refinement plan.
The Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan diagram amendment to re-designate 57 acres of land
from Low-Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential and text amendment
describing the land use diagram are consistent with the remaining portions of the refinement
plan.
The findings below describe how the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan text and diagram
amendments are consistent with the policy direction contained in the Jefferson-Far West
Refinement Plan. Policies found to be applicable to this request are addressed below.
Land Use Policies
15. Low- to Medium-Density Residential Area
This area shall be recognized as a low- to medium-density residential area. The City shall
explore methods of encouraging an increase in residential density yet maintaining the
character of the area. Residential densities beyond ten units per acre shall be allowed,
subject to an approved block plan or rezoning to R-2 in conjunction with site review. The
City shall encourage block planning, infilling and shared housing, in this area. Access to
housing units off of alleys shall be accommodated when not in conflict with other policies
and goals. The City shall encourage the rehabilitation of the existing housing stock
through both public and private reinvestments (page 27-28).
The above policy is the subject of the refinement plan amendment request. If approved, the
amendment will clarify the first sentence, changing it to “this area shall be recognized as a low
density residential area.” It will also strike the third sentence, referring to allowing densities in
excess of 10 units per acre if accompanied by a block plan or a site review suffix. The rest of the
policy will remain as is, and will still reflect the applicable residential density findings in the
plan, including:
This area consists primarily of single-family residential structures built between 1920 and
1950…the average parcel size is in the area is approximately 8,276 square feet (page 27).
Although some rezoning and lot partition applications have been approved since the refinement
plan was adopted, the area still consists primarily of lots zoned R-1. Most are developed with
single family dwellings, but many lots contain more than one dwelling unit.
In their motion to initiate these amendments, City Council also included a sunset clause that
would cause the area to revert back to Low- to Medium-Density development on July 1, 2008.
The sunset clause acknowledges that the long term development pattern envisioned in the
refinement plan does include medium-density development. The city is also actively pursuing
development of infill standards that would address some of the concerns associated with the
medium-density designation.
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of the refinement plan.
(b) New inventory material which relates to a statewide planning goal.
(c) New or amended community policies.
(d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state
regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land use plan.
(e) A change of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at
the time the refinement plan was adopted.
The proposed amendments are not based on an error in the publication of the Jefferson-Far West
Refinement Plan, new inventory material relating to a statewide planning goal or new or
amended state or federal laws, regulations, or policies; therefore EC 9.8424(2)(a), (b), (d) and
(e), above, are not applicable to this request.
Consistent with EC 9.8424(2)(c), the proposed plan amendments are consistent with the related
Metro Plan amendment to re-designate the subject property from Medium Density Residential to
Low Density Residential. If it is found to comply with the applicable approval criteria, the
Metro Plan amendment constitutes a new community policy in the context of this criterion.
In addition, all of Eugene’s zoning districts have been repeatedly revised to allow increases in
residential density as a means of achieving compact growth. In 1983, when the refinement plan
was adopted, R-2 allowed one dwelling unit per 2,650 square feet. Allowable density was thus
16.4 units per net acre.
In 1985, the City adopted small lot provisions, allowing lots in R-2 to be 2,250 square feet in
size, and thereby allowable density was increased to 19.4 units per net acre. In 2001, when the
3
Land Use Code was updated, R-2 was revised to allow 14-28 units per net acre. A new
provision for calculating density specified that when figuring maximum density, the resulting
figure would be rounded up. When calculating the minimum density required on a particular lot,
the resulting figure would be rounded down.
An example 8,000 square foot lot in Area 15 zoned R-2 would currently allow six dwelling units
(.18 acres x 28 du/acre = 5.14, which rounds up to 6). When the refinement plan was adopted in
1983, the R-2 provisions in place would have allowed three units (8,000/2,650 = 3.01, which
rounds down to 3).
The changes to the R-2 zone, although not specific to this neighborhood, are considered amended
community policies in the context of the refinement plan amendment criteria.
Lastly, although not criteria on which to base a land use decision, the City also adopted the
Growth Management Policies in 1998, and many of these policies address issues relevant to
these amendments. In particular, policies 6 and 9 refer to balancing the impacts of infill with the
goal of densifying the city as a whole.
Policy 6: Increase density of new housing development while maintaining the character
and livability of individual neighborhoods.
3
Since 1987, the Metro Plan has called for “over 10 through 20” units per gross acre in the
Medium Density Residential designation (Policy A.9). The Land Use Code update attempted to
convert this intent to net acreage requirements.
Policy 9: Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill, and
redevelopment on neighborhoods through design standards, open space and housing
maintenance programs, and continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning
programs.
In support of Policy 6, the proposed amendments maintain the character and livability of Area 15
of the Jefferson neighborhood by prohibiting upzoning from R-1 to R-2. With respect to Policy
9, these amendments can be seen as part of a larger neighborhood strategy to encourage infill in
the most appropriate places. Infill standards are anticipated to be developed and applied to this
neighborhood in the near term, mitigating the impacts of infill that may be allowed in the future.
Other Growth Management Policies that directly relate to density and infill in the subject area
include policies 1, 2, 7, and 10:
Policy 1. Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking actions to
increase density and use existing vacant land and under-used land within the boundary
more efficiently.
Policy 2. Encourage in-fill, mixed-use, redevelopment, and higher density development.
Policy 7. Provide for a greater variety of housing types.
Policy 10. Encourage the creation of transportation-efficient land use patterns and
implementation of nodal development concepts.
Although these policies encourage dense development, the priority for this area at this time is to
implement the relevant portions of policies 6 and 9 while infill compatibility standards are developed.
Code Amendment.bold and
Eugene Code Section 9.8065 requires that the following criteria (in
italic
) be applied to a Code Amendment.
EC 9.8065 Code Amendment Approval Criteria.
If the city council elects to act, it may, by ordinance, adopt an amendment to this land use code
that:
(1) Is consistent with applicable statewide planning goals as adopted by the Land
Conservation and Development Commission.
The findings under EC 9.7730(3)(a), above, are incorporated herein by reference.
(2) Is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable adopted
refinement plans.
The findings under EC 9.7730(3)(b) and EC 9.8424(1)(c), above, are incorporated herein by
reference.
(3) In the case of establishment of a special area zone, is consistent with EC9.3020
Criteria for Establishment of an S Special Area Zone.
This criterion is not applicable to the proposed amendments.
Jefferso.n Far West Plan Amendments
City Council Packet
February 20, 2007
Index of Planlling C'ommission Public. Testimony and Minutes
1. 01/08/07 Draft Plaml1ng Commission Minutes (Deliberation)
2. 12112/06 Letter from Jefferson Westside Neighbors
3. 12/12/06 Email from ,Susannah Meininger
4. 12/12/06 Letter from R.obert Passaro
5. 12/11/06 Elnailfrom Tom Ifappy
6. 12107/06 Letter from Bob Briscoe
7. 12/06/06 Email.from Jay~ Bozie'vich, EWEB
8. 12/05/06 Elnail from Sarah Petc.rsen
9. 12/05/06 Letter from Sara Pritt
10. 12/05/06 Letter from Scott Noble
II. 12/05/06 Letter from Rene Kane
12. 12/05/06 Letter from Janice Gotchall
13. 12/05/06 Letter from Doris Re)'nolds
14. 12/05/06 Email from Susan Muir
15. 12/05/06 Draft PIa.nning Commission Minutes (Stud}'Session)
16. 12/05/06 Draft. Planning Comtnission Minutes (Public Ii:earing)
17. 12/05/06 Letter from David Hinkley
18. 11/28/06 Letter from John Detvveiler
19. 11/27/06.Letter from Jefferson \\rcstside Neighbors
20. 11/27/06 Petition submittedb:y Jefferson'VvTestside Neighbors
21. 07/06/06 Petition submitted by Jefferson Vi estsid.e Neighbors
22. 11127/061.letter from Jefferson 'l\"estside Neighbors
23. 11/21/06 E.mail from l\1ary Barlo\v
24. 11/20/06 .Email from Nanc)! Nichols
25. 11/20/06 Email from Bill Seider
26. 11/18/06 Emuil from Katherine Boyd
27. 11/09/06 Letter from Susan Connoll)!
28. 11/08/06 Elnail from l.leon Goldin
29. 11/06/06 Email from Kurt Albrecllt
30. 10/28/06 Letter from Jefferson Westsid,e Neigh.bors
ATTACIIMENTB
12 pages
9 pages
3 pages
2 pages
1 page
1 page
1 page
2 pages
1 page
1 page
1 page
1 page
1 page
1 page
7 pages
13 pages
12 pages
1 page
4 pages
20 pa.ges
21 pages
12 pages
1 page
2 })age.s
1 page
1 page
1 IJage
1 page
1 page
2 pa.ges
'Note: Also submitted into the record by' the JeffersonV/estside Neighbors \vere the
Jefferson Far West Refillelnent Pla.n and l\ppendix. These are, not included llere, but are
available for revie\;v or purchase at the Planning Di\riSlon.
~~
SUMMARY MINUTES
Regular Meeting
E.ugene Planning Commission
Sloat Room-The Atrium-99 West 10th Avenue
January' 8, 2007
11 :30 a.m.
P'RESENT:
R.ick Duncan, Vic.e President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, RalldyHledik~ John L.aviless~
Ann Kneeland, Anthony McCo\vn, members; Lisa Gardner, Terri Harding, Susan Muir,
Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary McNeel, Public Vi orks
Department; Paul Conte, Angela Rooney, Vicki Mercer, John O'Donohue, Zack
Vishanoff, Wend)! Coner, Pauline Hutzon, Ginny Osteen, Matt W'hite, W.P. Moser,
Janice Gotchalk, Ste.phen Franzen, David Gusset, David Hinkey, Ed rvt;urpby, Charles
Snyder, Ron I~arson, Steve Celeste, Ho\vard Lundeen, Marilyn J.St.evenson, Brianna
Jackson, Jamie Floj'd, Isaac Markeke, Carol Westlake, Walter Vos, Sarah Petersen,
Garrick Mishaga,. guests.
ABSENT:
Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
PU'BLIC COl\'lME.NT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-October 24, 2006
rvlr. Duncan, seconded by Mr. La\vless~moved that Octobe.r 24~ 2006 minutes be
approved as submitted. The motion passed unaninlously, 7:0.
II. UPDATE: CITY HALL MASTER PLANNING
EUetl1~eninty, T'NT Consulting
rv1INUTES-f;ugene Planning .COfll1l1ission
January 8, 2007
Page 1
:'\
III.
~~;~.~. "
~/P~1~y]>)~~
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERA TIONI ACTION: JEFFERSONIF ARMitf~~">""
PLAN AMENDMENTS
Staff: Terri H.arding, 682-5635
Mr. Lawless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the Planning COll1mission
recommend approval of the i\1etro Plan Amendment) Refinelnent Plan
Amendment and Code Amendment as modine-d in the Planning Commission
deliberation. The motion passed unanimously', 7:0.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION ANDST AFF
A. Other Items from Staff
B. Other Items fromCom.mission
MINu'rES-Eugene Planning Commission
J alluary 8, 2007
Page 2
'~
~t~
MINUTES
Regular Meeting
Euge.nePlanning Commission
Sloat Room-rrhe Atrium--99 West lOth Avenue
January 8, 2007
11 :30 a.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan,'Vice President; Jon Belcher,. Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, John'
La\vless,Ann Kneeland, Anthony tvtcCo\vn, members; Lisa Gardne.r, Terri
Harding, Susan Muir, Kurt Yeiter, Planning and Development Department; Gary
McNeel~ Public Works Department; Paul CQnte, Angela Rooney, Vicki Mercer,
John O'Donohue, Zac.k Vishanoff, Wendy Coner, Pauline Hutzon, Ginny. Osteen,
Matt \\{hite, W.P. Moser, Janice Gotchalk, Stephen Franzen, Davi.dGusset,
David Hinkey, Ed Murphy, Charles Snyder, Ron Larson, Steve Celeste, HO\\lard
Lundeen, Marilyn J. Stevenson, Brianna Jackson, Jami.e Floyd, Isaac ~arkeke,
Carol-Westlake, \\lalter Vas, Sarah Petersen, Garrick Mishaga, guests.
ABSE.N'T:
MikeSuUivan, ex ofjicio.
Mr. Duncan convened the meeting of the Planning COlllrnission.
PUBLIC COl\tll\fENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
PaulConte~ 1461 West Tenth Avenue, distributed copies ofa January 3. 2007 letter from the
Jefferson V/estside Neighbors (J\VN) to the Euge.ne Planning COffilllission from JV\IN.co-chairs
Rene Kane and Paul Conte regarding "City Council action On Measure 37claim and Chamber
Special Area Zone. JJ He said regarding the Land Use Code process c<urrently undef\Va)l, he had
heard rumors that the City of Eugene had contracted with someone at the University of Oregon
(lJO) to look at alley development and other development issues. H'e said he had not heard lTIuch
l\100rrES-...,....,Euge.ne Plann ing(.~onlnl 18sion
January 8, 2007
Page ]
'l-
LL
public comment about that. He claitned one of faculty members involved had submitted a
recommendation to the Land Use Code amendtnent process. He was concerned about a
contractor submitting individual comments to the process. .
Zachary Vishanoff, Patterson Street, distributed copies of a ne\vslettet entitled Just Do It
Sornelvhere Else!." Hee.xpressed concern that the va and the City of Eugene vvere getting too
close together regardingcontr~cting issues. He noted t~e va had a public relations agen4a, and
saidthe City should be looking ahead at DOpro.hl.ems related to sustainability and updating
cultural resources studies for the West University Neighborhood and Fairmoullt Neighborhood.
There was consensus b:y the Planning Conlmission to M.f. Duncan~s suggestion that the-agenda be
revised to limit the time for the City Hall Maste.f Planning Update.
l. APPROV AL OF MINUTES-October 24, 2006
Approval of the October 24, 2006 minutes was deferred.
II. UPDATE: CITY HALL MASTER PLANNING
Ms. Gardner introduce,d Mike Penwell~ Public Works Facilities Project Manager for the City I-JaU
-Master Planning proJect, and Ellen Tenity,T'NT Consulting.
Mr. Penvvell revie\ved the history and status of the Cit}t Hall Master Planning project. He said
- Phase 2 of the City Hall Complex Master Plan w'as completed in December 2006 with decisions
rea.ched by the Cit)! Council on four lllajor issues. An important part ofthi8 effort ,vas a public
involvement process conducted in support of the Council's decisio111naking process. Phase 3 of
the master planning process \\!ould c.ommence shortly wit.h-addition.al public involvetnent effort.s
design.ed to further i.nform the Council's decision making process about more detailed issue such
as pha.c;ing, financing~ and timing~
The four Inajor issues identified included:
. Seismic deficiencies.
· Obsolete electrical and mechanical systenlS, single glazing, uninsulated slab, resulting in
excessive energy consumption, could be reduced to or 1/5 of current energy
MINUTES--.."Eugene Planning Cot11mission
January 8, 2007
Page 2
cr
Q
consumption.
· Dispersed services around downtown-the City c-urrently uses 2.5 times the amount of
leased space compared to the amount of space at City Han, which.would increase with
the addition oftbePolice Auditor's office and offices for City Councilors, creating
inefficiencies.
· Civic presence and connection---currentl)/ City Hall site underutiHzed (with 80,000
square feet of usable space on a 100,000 square foot site) and deemed blight by the State
of Oregon.
In 2004, the City Council established the City Hall Master Plan a priority'with four phases:
· Phase I-Policy advisement occ-urredin 2005.
· Phase 2---Developnlent plan phase in 2006.
· Phase 3--lmplelnentation plan phase itl2007.
· Phase 4-Design and construction phase, titneline to be determine-d.
A major question \vas vv'bether the existing City Hall should be rehabilitated or built new. .After
revie\v, tbe Cit~y Council decided to build a ne\\! facility. One t.he issue of\vnere to locate Police
services~ on a 7:1 voted, the CityCounc-iI decided to locate poHcepatrol outside of City Hall, and
housing the Police Chief and police administration in City Hall.
Upon revie\ving the 26 different sites considered by the project team, the City Council identified
the Roc-k .~nRodeo and Lane Butterfly parking lot (or the Roc,k '0 Butterfly site) as the preferred
site. In 2007, costs, phasing and financing mechanistns would be. researched.
Ms. Teninty stated that the public participation format used for the project \vas that developed by
the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2). She explained the process that had
been used as delineated in the Agenda Itcln Sumnlary (AIS).
~1r. Belcher stat.ednvo people asked \vhy.construction ofa ne\vCit)r Hall \vas under
consideration at a recent City Club meeting, opining there \vas still public concern, not about
\vhere and how, but rather \vhether,.a neV1 Cit)r Hall should be built He added that peop)e~!ould
respond to this proposed project based. upon their feelings .aboulCit)t goverrunent rather than
whether the:y' felt a nevv'.facHity was appropriate.
lVflNUTES-----Eugene Planning Commission
January 8, 2007
Page 3
l-
LL.
ce
lJ:
C
Ms. Teniat)' concurred there\vasa large anti--govemment sentiment through the community.
Mr.. Lawless continued to be impressed with the public involvement efforts, commending the,
high sense oftranspa.rcncy in the project He recommended finding a way to engage those
citizens who shared his opinion to participate in the process.
In response to Mr. Hledik,Ms. Gardner stated initially she anticipated no land use issues to arise,
but the process. could identify some. She. added no Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan (Metro Plan) changes ,vere needed.
~'s. M.uir added the Do\vnto,vn Plan and current zoning allowed and encouraged this dense type
ofdeveloptnent.
In response to Mr. Belcher, Mr. PenvvcU said public comment throughout tbe process had
suggested that a new buil.ding be able to accommodate other public uses such as farmers' f\1arket
or a youth center, and the Rock'n Butte-illy site- could accommodate those types of uses. Ms.
Teninty added that other people had a.sserted a governnlent building should be just a governtnent
building and not house other uses.
Responding to Ms. Kneeland, Mr. Penwell said the City of Eugene currently required LEAD
silver certification on all ne'" buildings, adding gold was easily achievable on the proposed
structure) vvith platinum achievable as "veIL
Ms. Gardner advised the Planning Conlmission that as a resident of the area considered for the
project, she was stepping aside, and Kurt Yeiter had assumed lea.d on the project. '
III. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION/ACTION:
JEFFERSONIF AR\\'EST PLAN AMENDMENTS
Ms. Harding provided the staffreport. .Sbe said tbe PlanningCornmission held a public bearing
on a proposedanlendlnent to the Metro Plan amending the Jefferson/Far West Refinel11tJnt Plan
and amending the Euge,ne Code (Ee) for a. portion.ofthe Jefferson tleighborhoodkno\Vll as Area
J 5 in the refinement plan. The area subject to tbe request "vas located south of Vtlest rrhirteent.h
M.rNUTES~Eugene Planning Commission
January 8~ 2007
Page 4
r--
LL
a:
Avenue-, 'east of the Lane County Fairgrounds, and north of West Eighteenth Avenue. The eastern
boundary followed portions of Lincoln Alley. CbarneJton Alley. and WiIlamette Alley. The area
was wbolly witbin tbe Bugene city limits. Sbe referred to tbe following diagrams during ber
presentation:
· Area 15 Aerial Photo.
· Area 15 Number of Structure Addresses by Tax Lot.
· JeffersonlFar West Refinement Plan.
The requeBt included approva.l of the foUo\ving: .
· Metro PIau ,Amendment (Cit}r fde MA 06...5) to amend the Metro Plan land use diagram
from a. designation of Medium Density Residential to a designation of l~owDensity
Residential for the subject area.
· Refinement Plan Aluendment (City file RA 06-3) to amend the JeffersonlFar\\lcst
Refinement Plan land use diagram from a designation of L-ow-MediumDensity
Residential to a designation of La'V\' Density _Residential for the subject are-a andamelld
the text by revising the description of the subject area's plan4esigllation.
· CodeA.tllendrnent (City fileCA 06- 1) to revise the. language codi(ying theretinement
plan policy describing the area.~s plan designation.
Re-spondingto Mr. Hledik, Ms. Harding said theanly distinction bet\veen the portions of Area 15
north and south oftnc Amazon channel would be that the impetus for the proposed action was to
override thcMetro Plan action tbat'oc-curred south of the channel through tbe housekeeping
amendlnents. She- added in terms of policy making,thc' PlanningCornmissioncould make the
pol icy apply to the who.le Area 15 or ,not, noting tbeRefinement Plan treate-d the whole area the
sanle"
In respolise tolvlr. Belcher, Ms. Hard,lng opine,d the area north of the channel was designated
Mediu111 density on theMetroPlan'diagratTl because thearea\vas close to fronting on West
"Thirteenth Avenue.. wbicb was.atl arterial, and tbe best interpretation.oftbe original adopted
Ublob H diagram. She added although the Area /5 ATurnher of Structure Addresses by T(lXLotrnap
should have included all reside-utial units, there may he units that bad been constructed '\tvithout
building permit') and therefore.no record ofthe!ll existed.
MINUTE-S-ISugene PlanningConl111ission
January 8~ 2007
Page 5
I--
Ll-
e(
a:
c
Mr. Yeiter addedtnere were a number of multiple unit properties in the are,a that dated back to
1982 when it may have been seen as more consistent. He noted the original City Council motion
was more broadly stated, thus the entire Area 15 was notified of the proposal.
Responding to Mr. Lawless, Ms. Harding understood that if the ordinance\vas aUo\ved.to sunset~
the areas north and south of the channel/West Fourteenth Avenue would revert to "their current
density designation, as intended by the City CounciL
Mr. Yeiter suggested the Planning Comnlission clearly stated their intent in their reCotnnlendation
to the City Council on the plan amendments.
In response to Mr. Duncan, Ms. Hardingc.onfirmed that if the ordinance was allowed to sunset, it
would sunset back to the plan lang~a~e in place today. She.added the intent of the sunset clause
appeared to be to incorporate nevvly developed infiU developments standards that could be in
place by the time the sunset occurred~ She added that staffwould\vorkwith theCit)rAttorney to
ensure that inconsistent language in the current ordinance \vaselinlinated in the ne'\v ordinance.
Mr. Yeiter asserted the intent was that tbe maps and text '\vould revert if the language was not
clarified prior to the ordinance sun setting.
Mr. Belcher said another issue was \\tnere the sunset clause was imbedded in the land use code.
He expresse.d fr~stration in the past that refinement plans Vlere frequently modified by,the
Planning Commission and City Council as part of land, use decisions when' individuals applied for
a zoning change, '\vithout taking the issues ba~k to the neighborhood associations. He \vas
encouraged that this was a neighborhood initiated request
Mr. La-vvless asked staff to request an opinion fronl the City Attorney to clarify what language
\vas being rescinded.
Mr. lIledik..said he, supported the direction tbe Pla.nning Com.mission was taking. But:~ it \vas
important to acknovvledge the situation '\las an awkward one,vvith refinement and metro plans,
plus '\lork done by the neighborhood organization in 1983 hUjling into getting higher density
de,veloprnent \\lith a zoning ordinance that evolved over time into something they did not
MINUTES~I3ugene PJanningComulission
Ja.nuary 8, 2007
Pa.ge 6
~<'-
d:~
. anticipate. . He noted the density today was two times What had originally been projected. He said
if the Planning Commission recommended an interim change to the City Council that the City
Council understand the Commission was going beyond a "houselreepingflX" that was a policy
change.
Mr. Carroll stated tbe reversion date was arbitra.ry. He ,vanted to ensure that the Commission had
completed its '~lork, and suggested tbe reversion <:late be modified to meet ~be cotllpletion of
work.
Ms. Harding said tbe City Council could change the sunset clause.
In response to Mr. McCown, Mr. Yeiter said although the langua.gecouldbe changed froln a date
certail1 to the tinlC of implementation, tbe question of adequate tlctiou \vould remain open.
Mr. Hledik opined that infiUcompatibilit), standards needed to be in place by the July 2008
deadline to meet the City Council intent
M.r. Belc~er preferred a date certain. He 'said the original intent was deliberative planning and
site revie.",' '\vould occur in the neighborhoods before changes ,,,ould take place, but that did not
happen. His experience in almost every' case had been that site re'\tie.\v had been "rubber
stamped" .
Ms. Harding directed thc.Commissioners to AttacJlment C---StafJ Findings included in theAIS.
Mr. Belcner stated that the Grovvth MauagelnentPolicies (GMP) \\fere not part of the Staff
Findings, and . would like tbe issue addressed at SOIne point.
. In response to Mr. Belcher~ Ms. Harding .confinned that the proposed changes would incorporate
ne\\' refil1ernent plan polic)! language. She understood tbeGMP adoption la.ngua.ge \vasdirected
at the land use code update process rather than at individual land use applications, which ,vas tbe
current practice. She said the GMPs \'vauld be applicable to the iufiU standards project and.more
general legislative update.s to tbe code.
Mr. Belcher a.sserted w'henever the Planning (;olurnissiou\va.s deaJing v'lith issues that. \vere in the
MINtJTES~Eugene Planning Cornnlission
January 8, 2007
Page 7
l-
Ll.
<
a:
refinement planpolicie.s and were proposing to adopt code changes, they should be part of the
deliberations and findings.
Mr. Yeiter said the policies were too broadly stated to be applicable to specific sites, but would be
used as guidance for C'it)' action, \~hich ,vas refle;cted in the ordinance language. The staff
findi.ngs in theAIS did not specifically address local policies such as growth managenlent
policies adopted outside of the Metro Plan or refineme~t plans. He reminded theCOllltllission
that it cou~d correspond with the City Council. outside of the findings, and make specific
recommendations outside of tbe ctiterhi. Additionally, if the Comm ission had concerns or
wanted to rnake a statement that the action was or. was not consistent with gromh man.agement
policies, Mr. Yeiter recommended that the Commission submit those concerns independently
from the refinement plan recommendation before the Commission.
At M.r. Belcher's suggestion, the Commission tabled further discussion by consensus until a tater
time.
M~. Harding facilitated a revie'\\>' of changes noted by staff in Attachment C-Stq[f Fil,dings and
recorded those comments. She said the City Council would conduct a public hearing on the
proposed refinement plan amendments on February 20, 2007.
In response to Mr. Duncan, there, was consensus to include.tbe staff response to the findings
raised .at the December 5, 2006 public hearing in the, information for\varded to the City Council.
Responding to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Harding stated there were no applications in Area 15 that \~toutd
be affected by the proposed ch~nges.
Mr. La\vless, seconded by Mr. Carroll, moved that the Planning
Cotnmission recommend approval of the Metro Plan Amendment,
Refinement Plan Amendment and Code AUlendment as modified in the
Planning Commission deliberation.
Tbere\\tRS consensus that the findings would be sent viae-mail all Cot11rnissioners to revie"t and
approve. Ms.. Muir reminded Commissioners of a Cit), Attorney directive that the intent of thee-
mail communication \vas not to discuss the issue, but only revie\v and approve as subtnitted.Any
discussion on the lssue\vould need lobe brought to a Planning C,omnl1ssion meeting.
MlNUrrES-E.ugene Planning Commission
January 8, 2007
Page 8
I--
u..
<
a::
c
"file motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
I. APPROV ALOF MINUTES-October 24, 200()
Mr. Duncan, seconded' by Mr. La'\vless, moved that October 24, 2006
minutes be approve.d as submitted. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
IV. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF
A. Other Items from Staff
Ms. Gardner distributed copies of a Eugene City Council Agenda Item Suntmary regarding the
Update on Commercial/Industrial/Residential Lands Studies scheduled for January .17, 2007, . and
reviewed tbe AIS.TIlere \vasconsensus to advise tbe City Council tbat the Planning Commission
had a continued interest in the topic.
Mr. Yeiter stated the buildable lands study was a report prepared on bebalf of the Lane Council
of Governments for the three lnetro area jurisdic.tions (ell).! of Eugene, City of Springfield, and
Lane, County), that reviewed the supply side of what land "vas.available for cotnmercial and
industrial lands. It did not include the demand side of the equation. It was also an attempt to
create a data base far use by the public as ,veIl as public agencies.
B. Other Items from Commission
Mr. C~rroll.asked if the City Council was interested in buildable lands seoping through
intergovemnlCJltal cooperation or only for the City . Ms. . Gardner said theCouncH "vas interested
in scoping buildable. lands for the City of Eugene. In re.sponse to 1\1r. (~arroll, Ms. Gardner staff
\tvould.\vork.on inviting Ed Weeks to participate in the PlanningC01TI.luission discussion about
GMPs.
Mr.. La.\vless said he. "vould be interested in learning 11lore about the ne\\4y adopted Land
MINU'TES-"Eugene Planning Comluiss.ion
JaJ1uary8~ .2007
9
I--
<(
a:
Conservation.and Development Depa.rt~ent(LCDC) urban growth boundary (UGB) rules.
In r.esponse to Mr. Belcber, Ms. Gardner said a tentative date had been set for the hospital
, certificate of need. Ms. Muir cautioned Commissioners against discussing tbe topic prior to its
inclusion on a Commission agenda., or e,ngaging in ex parte contacts.
Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1:37 p.tu.
,(Recorded by Linda Henry)
m: \2007\planning and development department\planning division \planning commission\pcO 701 G8. doc
MINU'TES-Eugene Planning C:ommission
January 8, 2007
Page 10
Jefferson Westside Neighbors
Testimony and respon.se to
Planning Commission publ'icl1earing
on Jefferson "Area 15" plan '8ndcodeamendments
Decelnber 12, 2006
The Jefferson Westside Neighbors OWN) has previously submitted testimony in support
of the proposed' amendments. The follo\ving testiJnony provide comments in response to
plano,jng commissioners' questions, staff comments) and other public testimony.
Maximum R-2 densit}r in 1982-1983
We confirmed \vith staff that J\~,fN's prior testimony accurately stated themaxinlUtll
R-2 density during the 1982...1983 period when the JeffersonlFar\\lest Refinement
Plan (J/F\\l RP) \vas deliberated and adopted by City Council.
The figures presented by staff during the discussion were incorrect
l-~he maxitnum R...2 density \vasestablished in ordinance 18~71, se,ction 9 (arnending
9.336 R-2 definition) and section 16 (amending 9.546 Lot area; Lot Area PerD\velling
Unit) as 2,650 s.f. per dwelling unit
Mathematically, this is approxinlately 16.4 d\veHing-units per net acre (du/na), but it is
essential to understand that the zoning code in 1983 had notl1ingresenlbling current
zoning code 's Hround up "provision, which grea.tly inflate,s the effective allowable
density, especially on smaH parcels, such as those in Area 15.
As \veexplained in our prior testimon)!, the equivalent nlaximum density under the
current R-2 calculation method is approximately 9.7 du/na.
Estimating additional d"rclling units
Staff discussed the question of\vhat net differenc,e the proposed arnendments lnight
have on the nutllber of future dvvelling units that \vould be added to Area 15.
Staff has addressed the legal criteria that [nay be related to this question in their
findings, and staffcorre,ctly found the proposed amendments c.olnply \vith the
standards.
In tenns of the practical impacts the proposed amendments may have, there are several
ilnportant points to consider:
o Because the amendments sunset on Ju ly I, 2008, the period of any analysis is only
eighteen months or le,ss. rrhis temporary action will have no long term effect~ and
based on informal observations oftne rate of developrnent in the area, the number
of ne\v 'units that would be built in this time interval \vould be SJllEtllundereither
designa.tion. lienee the net difference is likely to be fllinor and should not be a
factor in this te111pOprl1)J action.
o [)uring the 2004...2005 HChanlbers Revisited" project, data'on residential
developnlent \\las c.ollected .and analyzed for the area w'ithin the "East rrra.ditional
111- 23
Neighborhood (ETN, now tneS-C/R-2 subarea'ofthe Chambers Special Area
Zone).' This area has about the same number of lots (265) and has a similar
historical character (single-family, detached, grid-pattern, etc.) as Area IS. T<ne
main difference is that the ETN had been zoned R-2 for many years prior to the
study.
An analysis of infiH development in the ETN area showed that only 27 tots had
been developed with innn that resulted in three or mqre dwelling units on the lot
Quoting from the report:
HThe impactfrorn these developments is starkly different than the impact of
the 200 or so lots that have been hl:vtorically develoJJed 14Jitn one or two
mve llintgs.
The cost has been high.qfthe 27 lots, 19 of them have '(severe H negative
in1pacts on adjacent properties, anll6 of them navf? Hsubstantial J, negative
impacts.
The Hbeneflt 1J has been lOtV - only 36 more dWlelling units than the
approximately 330 thatlvould exist if these Inftll developlllenls hlld been
limite€{ to llVO units per lot. ,,2 .
Based on this analysis of a comparable area, the most likely scenario if Area 15
remains designated "M.edium Density Residential" (MDR) for the next eighteen
months isa handful of in fill developments producing a miniscule net gain in
dwellings, but causing significant negative impacts on the blocks where they are
built.
o Producing reliable projections of the number of units that \'vtill be built under
alternative r~finem.ent plan scenarios in an a1rnost fully built~out area, such as A.rea
15, is extremely diffi.cult. In the case .of Area 15, the maximum density aUov./cd by
R-2 standards is so high that it has tittle bearing Qtl the number of units that could
actually be built under existing site constraints andR...2 and Multiple-FarnHy
development standards, such.as height and setback restrictions, open space
requireluents, etc.
Further complicating any estimate is t.he fact that the nutnb.er of economical I)''''
feasible units, based on variable market conditions~ is Hkely to be significantly less
than the number ofphysicaUypossible units. t
Finally, in the specific case of Area 15, any realistic projection for t.he next
eighteen months would have to account for the dampening effect of almost certain
strong resident opposition to any upzoning to R....2. We note the JWN has adopted
several Illotions expressing such opposition, and has appealed the recent Planning
Director's interpretation of the current Area 15 policy.
I.n actuality, neither staff n~or \ve can provide an~y reliable estinlate OfI10\\l 111any
more units \vould aetuaHybe built under a Lo\,," Density ResidentiaJ (t~DR)
I See Section V of the Chambers Revisited Neigbbors' Report, included in public testimony during the
CityCouncH hearings on the Chanlbers Special .A.rea Zone and available on",line at cnrNeighbors.org.
2 See page 48 of the report.
2
111-24
designation, nor ,any' reliable, estimate of how' many more units \\-'ould actually be
built under a MDR ,designation; and thus there is simply no credible basis for an
estimate of any net difference.
The best basis ,for any estimate remains the "Chambers Revisite:d" analysis, ,,,hic.h
suggests any net difference over the next eighteen months \vould be insignificant
in relation to Eugene's housing supply and needs, and should not be a factor in this
decision~
Measure 37 and amendment and the sunset date
Davidc subnlitted t~stimony claiming that, due to the sunset clause, "these changes
vvi II.expire. before ,they actually apply to existing property o",'oers."
This is \Vfong. The ne\vpoHcies and code will apply to aU properties, as of their
effective date.3
Of course, Measure 37 looms over every new land use regulation, and the City cannot
simply stop taking any action for fear there may bt1 an Measure 37 claim. Planning
staff and the City attorne:y, as \yell as City Council, "vere aU wen aware of Measure 3 7
when staff recornmended~hese amendments asthe most effective approach, and
Council initiated the ame,ndments. Measure 37 is thus no reason for the Planning
Commission to recolnmend Council not adopt the proposed aniendments.
We would also note that in this particular situation, there, are favorable conditions with
respect to any potential Measure 37 claim:
o Property OViners are currentl)l limited to development allowed by the existing
zoning oftheir.property.Changing the Metro and J/F\\! RP designations will not
change any zoning. Thus, there is a colorable legal argument that the aUo'\vable
developlllcntafter the redesignation . is the same before and after the action, vvhich
would preclude a approval ofaf\1easure 37 claim.
o Also not that anyo\vner \vhoa.pplies for a zone change before the effective date of
these amendments vvould have, their a.pplication processed by the current
regulations. Thus, they \'\lould have no need for, nor any c.ausefor} a 1\1easure 37
claim.
o FinaHy,Eugene Ordinance 20331, \vhic.h sets forth theproc.ess for ha,ndHng
Measure 37 clairns allo\vs the City to inlpose the sanie regulations in effect lt1nen
an Ol11ner bought the property:
2.090 (4). If the Cit)l council rernoves or nlodifies the c.}lal1enged land use
regula.tion, thec,ouncil may as part of the decision re-ltllpose vtith respect to the
subject property,.all of the land use regulati.ons in effect at the tinle the claimant
acquired the property
3 Mr. HinkJey testified at the hearingregard~ng a iv1.easure.37 "{\,vo year vvindo\v."The.rvfeasure 37 rules to
Vdlicl1 the Hwindo\vH refers do. not limit. Tvleasure 37 claims on ne,,,, ordinances; the rules Inerely require the
claimant be de,n ied approval for a land use acti on before fiJinga iv137 claitll, Thus, there is no basis for the
clairn that this '\vindov{" makes the proposed Eunendnlents ineffective just because the arnendrrlents sunset
in eighteenlTIonths.
3
111-25
For almost all parcels in the eptire"redesignated'1 area (south of Amazon), this
would mean tile LDR designation and R~l zoning that "vas in effect prior to 2006
would apply, thus rendering a Measure 31 waiver meaningless.
.Mr. Hinkley also asserted "it should be extremely difficult to prove. that design
standards reduc.ed the value of a piece of property opening tneway for a Measure 37
claim."
There is simply no legal basis for this conclusion.
Measure 37 do~s not distinguish the type of regulation. A design standard, such as
maximum building height, that limits what can be developed has equal legal \veighr as
a maximum density " standard. "Design" vs.~'densityH is a distinction \'vithout a.
difference in the c9ntext of Measure 37 claitns and should have no bearing on the
decision at hand.
Gro,vtb Management policies
Mr. Hinkley also submitted testinlony that the proposed amendments do not comply
with Eugene Growth Management policies.
SOtaff and the City attorney have correctly found that the Gro\vth Management policies
are not part of the approval criteria, and the proposed amend'ments are not required to
c.omply with the cited policies.
. Mr. Hi'nkley"s testimony cited the Growth Managetnent section stating that the
policies should "guide the \\tork" of City staff. Policies that "guide" \\lork are
obviously not necessarily mandatory criteria for approval of a land use action, and the
testimony's assertion that the amendments must comply' with Growth Management
policies has no legal basis.
As to the policies themselves, Policy 6 is the pivotal policy relevant to the proposed
actions, and it clearly directs that City actions maintain the character and livability of
individual neighborhoods.
A quick review' of the other policies cited "in testimony makes clear they do not
"trump" this requirement. Nor do the proposed amendments c.onflict \vithany of these
pol IC ies:
o Policy 1 directs the City to "take actions to increase density ... "This policy does
not contain any language restricting other types of actions.
o Policy 2 directs the City to "encourage in-fill..." This policy is aspirational, not
proscriptive, and does not contain any language restricting other types of actions.
o Policy 5 directs the City to "Work cooperatively \vith Metro Area partners... to
avoid urban spra\\!l ... H This policy is a.spirational~ not prosc.riptive, and does not
contain any language restricting other types of actions.
o Policy 6 - "Increase the density! ofne,\! housing development \vhile l11.aintaining
the character and livabHityof in,dividual neighborhoods.'~ l'l1i8 policy is
4
111-26
specifically directed at density of "nelv housing development" and protecting all
neig,hborhoods.
The proscriptive ("'\X/hile maintaining'" e.g., not ",vhile considering") clause,
\vhich directs the City to maintai,n neighborhood character and livability, obviously
must be interpreted as a constraint on other actions, or there \\fould be no purpose
in including the clause.
The proposed amendments \vill help protect an established neighborhood by
limiting infill (not net1>')de\'cloprnentand thus\vouldcomply fully vvith this policy,
if that ,vere required.
o. Policy 7 directs. the City to "Provide for a gre.ater variet)lofhousing types." This
policy does not contain any language restricting other types of a~tions.
o Po'licy 8 directs the City to "Promote the construction of affordable housing" This
policy is essentially aspirational, not proscriptive, and does not contain any
language restricting other types of actions..
o Pollc)" 10 directs the City to "Encourage'the creation of transportation-efficient
land use pattern ..." This policyisaspirational, not proscriptive, and does not
contain any language restricting other types of actions.
E,ven irrespective of their not being approval criteria, the cited policies present no
conflict \\lith the proposed amendments.
FOigood reason, Council did not make Gro\vth Management polic,ies part of the
approval criteria to be applied to each individual land use, action.. Council has taken a'
broader vie,vvvith the,se policies and intends they be used to Hguide" an interre,lateo.set
of actions consistent\vith the polices.. An excellent example is Council's initiation of
the interrelated "Opportunity Siting" and ~'Infin Compatibilit)l Standards" progranlS.
Approval criteria
f\1r. Hinkley 'also submitted testimony that the proposed aUlendments do not comply
\vith adopted approval criteria.
Staff has correctly found the,unendments do. meet approval criteria.
We \vol-dd add to staffs findings that the amendrnents to the J/F\\l RP also address the
folJovving t\\/O items in approval criteria Ee 9.8424(2):
(c)lvetv or amended comnlunitypolicies.
Counc,iI~s September 11,2006 motion explicitly directs the policy for this area
be.amended, and thereby is essentially establishing ane\v policy.
In additjon,ofl, July 20, 2005, ,City Council adopted a Inution thatexpHcitly
replaced the prior "blanket zoning" policy \vith opportunity siting. f~rom the
tnoti on:
.. . Instead o.f blanket zoning that perfnils multiple U11its on alli\1{lZD
residential parcels; de ns it)} is obta.ined V); selective lJrojectsdevelopecl
c()mf}atib~J! at ver.:v high tiensities. 111ls maintains the cfu::tracter and
.fabric ({,(the e.\~isting neighborhood lvhileprovidinga variety oj'housing
5
III... 27
types to serve different populations, and increasing the overall net
density oflhe area. ...
Then on. December 14,2005 Council adopted a motion directing staff to work
on infillcompatibiIity stat1.dards 'as a compliOlentary program to "opportunity
siting" that (finally) implements existing policies to protect neighborhoods.
Council then funded these new policies and made thenl priorities in the work
plan. .
(e) A change in circumstances in a substantial manner that lvas'not anticipated
. at the time the refinement plan lvas adopted
l~he .density. a~d scale of development aUo\ved by the R-2 zone has changed
substantially since the J/FW RP was adopted in 1983. Most notably~ the. average
number of dwelling units ~nowed on parcels in the subject area has .
approxinlately tripled since that time. There is no evidence this substantial
change was anticipated at the time the refinement plan \vas adopted.
In addition, the N'ovember 15~2006 code interpretation Qfthe JIFW RP policy
covering. the subject area (fileCl 06-13) has voided any Htnit on densit), allo\\led
by "medium 'densit:y" (i.e., R-2) standards - a staff action that was neither
intended nor anticipated by the po.Hey's explicit '~low-: to medium-density"
designation of the area.
Further, this ,same code interpretation voided any application of the policy's
.requirement for block plans or site reviews that assure up-zonings and
subsequent development m.aintain the character'ofth.e area, as the plan clearly
intends. Tbis staff action was like\vise neither intended nor anticipated by the
policy.
"Bottom up" planning
f\1r. Hinkley also submitted testimony opposing the proposed amendnlents based on a
novel theory that the "proposal is being driven from the bottorn up.'~
There's no fllerit to thiscl.airTI nor any legal relevance to Mr. r!inkley's Hbottoln up"
theory.
. I'he testimony asserts the primar~y action among the three proposedalnendlnents is the
amendment to Eugene Code. This is \vrong. The prirnary action is to amend the J/FW
RP, vv'hicn is the legal.and appropriate instrument \vhere City Council establishes area-
specific policy.
This requires a Metro Plan amendment for consistency. While the Iv1etroPlan
estahlishesan HoveraU frame\vork,,4, local governments are responsible for area-
specific policies, such. as the case here. 1~he Metro l'>lao in ,no way envisions that only
the three...jurisdiction metro planning body wilt make~'top do\vn"policydec.isions
about specrfic IS-block areas inE.ugene.
4 rY1etro Plan 1-1
{)
IIJ-28
The need to amend Eugene Code is a legal formality so that refinement plan policies
c,an be applied in "limited land use" cases (e.g., lot partitions, subdivisions, and site
revie\~{). The policies inE.C 9.9500 to 9.9710 are sitnpJy copied from the refinement
plans.5 .
Much oftne rest of Mr. Hinkley's related testimony attempts to. apply some claimed
tneor)t of "top dovvn"planning to misconstrue stattHNide and Metro Plan policies
related to comprehensive planning as ifthey prohibited Eugene from taking specific
actions, such as those proposed, because some such. action. might reduce density in a
particular.area or have other area-specific effects. '
For the most part, statewide and Metro Plan polic.ies .can't be so narro\vly applied or
they would act as a "ratchet" in which changes that increased density in any specific
area \voutd be allo\ved, but changes that might reduce density in a particular area
would be prohibited.
\'le \vould also point out that if state\vide and Metro Plan policies ~fere applied this
\vay, they \\fould also effectively prohibit alnlost all ordinances to protect natural
resources, establish parks, and so on. Each of these actions individually may reduce
density ( even t~ the' point .of proh ioiting housing a Itogeth e,r}. Ho\vever, ina
comprehensive planning context, they are essential to health)", livable communities.
State\vide and Metro Plan policies - read sensibly - provide for a balance of actions
that may effe,ct overall density and other factors.
Large parcels
Charles Biggs raised concerns during oral testimony about developing "large parcels"
in Area 15.
<r'nere are only two large parcels - the Lighthouse rfemple block, and O'Hara School
and playground - and neither ofthenl are likely to bed-eve,loped as residential in the
next 18 months. Both these parcels are designat.ed "* MaJor Religious Facilities" on
the JlF\\' RP l.land Use Diagram.
lJcgi.slati"re and zoning history
This is a topic that has bee,n poorly explained in the past, and the J\VN has gone. to
SOOle effort to correct the record.
A few. facts to note:
o T'here have been three zone changes (fo.ur parcels) froIn R- I to R-2/SR in Are,a I 5
north of the Amazon CanaL Since this area \;vas (and is) designated i\1DR in the
f\1etro Plat1~ there \vas never an issue ofc.ontlict vlith the Metro Plan. ^
o l"hel.'debate" has been over "vllat happened and \vhyin the "redesignated'~ area~
south of the r\rna.zon Canal.
In this area, there "vas one zone change toR-2/SR ("Berg'" Z 84-20).
5 Only policies that constitute luandatory approval criteria (as in the Area 15 policy) are included in Eugene
Code.
7
111-29
There was' also a zone change to R -2/ t o that staff (incorrectly, as it turned out )
found during the application process did not trigger the Area 15 policy requirement
for site review (/SR) because (staff interpreted)R...2/1 0 \VOU Id not exceed the" 1 0
d\veUings per acre'~ threshold in the Area 15 policy.
In hoth cas~s, the change to tneR-2 base zone shquld not have been aUowed
because it conflie.ted",i!" the Metro. Plan's LDRdesignation. Staff and the
hearings official simply erred, but there was .no opposing testimony' to raise tbe
issue at tbe time.
Only in 2004 \vhen residents presented the M.etro Plan conflict argument in the
"Taylor" zone change (Z 04-19), was the correct application of the la\"/ establislled.
In denying the zone change to R-2/14, the hearings official correctly held that an))
upzoning toR-2, regardless of overlays, conflicted with tneMetro Plan LOR.
designation for this area.
That finding should have prevented the other two zone chan.ges in the LDR-
designated area, but the issue wasn't raise~ at the time.
It's also iUlportant to note that even in the very first case r'Berg" in 1984}, the
Eugene Code criteria explicitly stated that the Metro Planpre.vails over the
refinement plan. So it doesn't matter \\'hether some later LUBA or court action
also imposed this requirement - Eugene Code had already incorporated the rule in
the zone change criteria.
The only reason the twoupzonings to R-2 in the redesignated area \\'ere allowed
Vvta5 because the role of"R-2" as Eugene's.. implementation oftlie MetroPlanMDR
"vas not properly recognized by staff, and no other party presented the argument
until the "Taylor" case.
Thus, tbe main point regarding. the "redesignated" area: Zone changes to an R-2 base
zone have never been legal in this area until early 2006 ~lhen the MDR. (re)designation
became effective after the Land Use Code Update appeal.\vas dropped.
Could Council bave taken a different action in 20041
Commissioner McCo\\/n asked an important~ related question. about Council's
approval in 2004 of tile ~4housekeeping" redesignation. rIe asked\\!hether Council
could have taken an alternative action to eliminate the conflict bet\veen the !\1etro Plan
and the JIFW RP.
The ans\ver is "Yes" - Council could have approved either of tile foHo\ving
alternatives:
o Leave the Metro Plan LDR designation unchanged. Amend JIF\\l RP and code to
designate Area 15 as LDR.
This \vould have produced essentially the same outcome as the currently proposed
amendments\viH achieve - so, obviously this was an alternative available to
Council in 4004~ as \vell.
8
111-30
o Change the Metro Plan MDR designation and amend the J/F\\' RP and/or .code to
implement specific- new po Ii c.y and development standards tnat\\'ould limit density
e.g., belo\v the R.-2 maxinlum)'and/or establish development sta.ndards to assure
~'maintaining the character of the area," as the J/F\V RP requires.
This would have produced essentially the same outcome as \vha.t is envisioned as
the long-term solution for Area. IS that \vin (hopefully) be a result of the "InfiU
. Compatibility Standards" program that's under\vay.
In the past, there has been some confusion to the effect that thela\v "required" Counc.il
to amend the Metro I>lan designation to make it MDR. This isn't. correct, and either of
the above alternative actions could havebee.n taken by Council in 2004
The law does require that the Metro Plan prevail over conflicting refinement. plan
policies, and therefore it makes sense to amend one or both plans if they are in
conflict. But the la'Vv obviously lets theCouncilde9ide \vhich poHcy(ies) (e.g., LDR or
MD.R designation)\vill ultimately be reflected in both plans (a.nd code).
Thank you for your consideration.
Ple,asc: contact either of us if \ve can be of assistance.
Respectfully,
~(!;~~
P~t C~
Rene
254 Vvr.' 14th l\ ve.
rkane@Jtighstrearn .net
343-4309
Paul Conte, Co-Chair
1461 \\'. I Oth ~r\ve.
pc-onte@picante-soft.com 344-2552
9
III.. 3 I
HARDING Terri L
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
susannah [susannah@)cyber..dyne.com]
TuesdaYl December 12~ 20064:11 PM
HARDING Terri, l
Written_testimony ra: Area 15 I metro plan a-mendment, neither for .nor .against
windsheild survey..rtf; HAVG certification"
Attachments:
~.:,,~,.';:.
. ". ,.,..>.>~.-...:..
~ ..
windsheild -.AVG
survey.rtf (3 KB) tification_.txt (222 [
Commissioners:
People rear infill, but they don't realize that is is all around them and cont.ributing to
the vibrancy of the neighborhood they love. When infill is done right it is visua.lly
unobtrusive and brings life to a neighborhood. Some of the testimony presented at hearing
referred to area 15 as a neighborhood of single-family homes. In realitYI a recent
"windsheild surve~yU shows that 58.5-68,,8% of the lots in area
15 ha,\Te more than one unit, with 95 units 'in complexes of 3 or more
despite nominal Rl zoning. (See attached results.)
In the portion of area 15 north of the Amazon Canall 90..3-93,,5% of the lots have more than
one unit I al though this . 'area was described in testimony as being identical in charact.er to
the rest of area 15.
I chose this neighborhood as the plac~ to build my dream home, itself an infill cottage,
precisely because of the lively mix of housing types, and the greater-than-Rldensity that
gives it its urba.n-yet-friendlyfeel. I'd venture that many folks in this neig-hborhooo,
including some of those who testified in favor of the amend.mentsl may have chosen to live
here for the- same reasons.
Although this isn't a neighborhood of single-family" homes f unlimited upzonings to R2
wouldn't be appropriate either. I'd prefer that we preserve the nIO"Vl-to-mediumdensity'l
designation currently in the refinement plant and create anew zoning category to
implement it, e. g" R.I. 6 . Input from a variety" of folks is of course necessary to writes.
good code, but just to illustrate what I have in mind: how about a maximum density of 21
units/acrei a limited number of single-lot upzoning-a to R2 or R3 (possibly with consent of
nearby residents); design standards to ensure compatabilit,y" ~rithfandprivacy a.ud solar
access for I existing stru.ctures; and smaller minimum lot sizes that fit a more compact
neighborhood"
Many or the folk.s who submitted written testimony prior to the hearing made similar
suggestions. Contrary to how it may be perceived, neighborhood opinion is not unanimously'
opposed t'o infill t and theJWN does not speak for all or us . I haven I t yet met any of the
people who wrote in,but I know quite a rew neighbors, including myself, who abstain from
voting at JWN meetings rather than voting HnOn and wea.thering the consequent personal
attacks. (Thus the so-called Hunanimot:us'u motions opposing infill.). I know others who
don't attend the meetings an)'frtorefor simila.r rea.sons. Even though V4e can't st.omach th,e
stifling of debate occllrring a.t JWN, vte are active mernbersof our community -- and we love
our neighborhood for its bustling non-R1 self.
Susannah Meininger
1418 Lavvrence, Unit A
97401
111-32
f(Jlin t'~r f!3' Z-
Existing,landUse Patterns in' Area 15, Jefferson-Westside.Nelghborhood
Results of a'windsheildsufvey"December 10-11 J 2006
Area 15 as a whole
Complexes of3 or more units: 95 units, on 28 lots '
Of these, 36 units are purpose-built apartments and 59 units ara in houses that
havfj been converted to ap.arlme.nts. (This also includes lots with one house plus
a duplex; there are 4 'such lots in Area 15.)
Purpose-built duplexes (not sharing a lot with a house): 12 units, 6 lots.
Houses with accessory dwellings visible from street or alley: 116 uinits, 58 lots.
Vacant lots: 5
Of the 241 occupied lots in Area 15, 92 or 38. 1 % have more than one unit visible
from the street, with a total of 223 units on these 92, lots. However, many
acaessoryunitsare built illegally -- either because the property isa rental (and
thus accessory units are disallowed) or to Bvoid paying. fees. On blookS where I
spoke with. residents or had personal experienoe, I found that approximately 50%
of the houses appearing from the street and alley to be single-family actually did
have accessory units. Thus it maybe that, of the 149 lots that seem to be single
family, 50% or 74 do h'ave additionall1:fi)its. This would bring the total of 166 lots,
or 68.8%. of the occupied lots in Area 15 having more than one residential unit.
More conservatively, an estimate of 33% "discreetll accessory units would make
the total 141 Jots, or 58.5%.
Subarea North of the Amazon Canal
3 or more units: 42 units~ 13 lots
Duplexes: 4unitsf 2,Iots
Vi'sible accessory units.: 11
Vacant lots: 2
Apparent single family homes: 7
Estimated 500/0 with accessory units: 3
III -33
(Y)l/nJ~~r fj' 3
Thus an estimated 29/31 or 93. 5~ of occupied lots north ,of the canal have more
than one.residential unit (significantly mote than area 15 8S. B whole). If only
33% have "discreet" units, 90. 3% of lots oontain more than one unit.
111-34
Dec. 12)2006
To: rrerri Harding I Eugene Planning Complission
From : Robert Passaro
Re: Written testimony for Metro Plan amendments regarding "Area 15"
~
Before allowing and encouraging more density in the so-called "Area 15:' I hope the city
and its planners will consider that Eugene does not seem to have adequate infrastructure _
particularly sewers - in many parts of this older neighborhood. I bring this up because I
live here and have recently become tangled in a dispute with a neighbor who wants to
simply build a garage in his backyard but can't because he would be disturbing a so-
called "community sewer line." (I am sure you are familiar with community sewer lines.
Ifnot, the wastewater folks at Public Works can fill you in on this problem.)
A glance at a lot map ofthis neighborhood shows that my situation is not unique. There
are dozens of lots di'vorc.ed from the alle)'s::::- \-vhere the city se,wer Inains run. Most of
these are probably on some kind of community sewer line -- that is, a Hne shared by
several homes. Even if they are on a separate line, their pipe has to cross other people's
property before reaching the cit~ymain. This seelllsparticuJarly pervasi've along 17th,
\vhere I li\Te. I'm sure there are some official. easements, but in many c,ases these are so
old that there are not. Now, even if Mr. Nystrom's decision regarding allowable density
in this neighborhood would not create more "community sewer" disputes than pop up
no\\'",- thought it fiB)' --youhave to suspect it \vQuld create more acrimonious ones.
Let's imagine, for a second,. that I want to build a four... ornve-unit apartment house on
my lot. I'm now on a community sewer line that crosses tvvoother lots before it can
connect to the city se\ver. I'm going to h.ave to ask my neig.hbors (or an easement to cross
\-\lith a ne\l'lline? And they are going to have to build their o\vn nc\vlines,perbaps, since
tJle old one \vilI be disturbed and-lose its "existing/nonconforming" statl.ls?Wh.at do you
SlIppose \1vouldbe the response of those neighbors (\vho are probably none to happy to
see and apartment house gOlllg up. next door an)'\va:y)? They aregoing.to tell me to HOO
tonelI.H Or sa)' I want to build apartments on a lot tllat has a. community se\ver line
crossing it. I have to try to get t.he folks upstream to install new lines because I "vant to
dig up the existing one to build my apartl11ents? I.\\Tould expect the same response.
It's probably ttnre.alistic for the city to make the kind of large investlnentneeded for a
wholesale upgrade of the se\vers in this part of town -- thougll, perhaps it should..So if
,this pl.lSn for density. goes ahead., r~ III tllillking that sevver upgrades likel)' will come
piecenleal, lot by lot, project by proje.ct.
In reading tIle deeisionb)lMr. Nystrom (forgive me. if I have this \vrong,but I found this
docllnlcnt largely illc,omprehensible), some req'llests for changes vvoldd require a'~site
re'vievv" or a ~~blocl{ plan." I checked the city code sections regarding sit.e revie,,'s and
while the I see that such issues as "tree preservation" and building "glare" are addressed,
I still 8111 not clear vvhether an assessment of the sevver lilleandotllcr infrastructure \vould
be required. One \vottld hope so, but \;vho knows? Eve~ ifit does, there is 110thil1g I c,an
III - 3 5
see that would give any guidance on how to actually solve the problem (\vhich~ if we'.re
being frank here, means "who's .gonn~pay for it").
I think my concern is not unfounded. For instance, tIle city allowed the lot vvhere the
Cornucopia restaurant sits -- 295 W. 17th -- to be rezoned frolll R-l to C-l -- about six
years ago. I am not sure ifth.at required a site review, but in any case the infrastructure
issues\vere apparently not exanlined because the restaurant vvas on a community se\ver
lin.e -- and still is. A ne,,! restaurant on a decades-old comlnunity sewer line! That line has
proved inadequate. It bubbles up into a neighbor's yard. Cornucopia's o\vners are no\v
involved in a dispute Vvrith another neighbor who refuses to grant an easement so they can
build a new line. Without the easement, they have NO ACCESS to city se\ver service!
Given the city's interest in mai11taining th.e peace and facilitating orderly de'lelopment, it
would seem \vise that, in conjunction with any planning and zoning ch.anges in this area,
the city needs to do som,ething about this -- perhaps 1) upgrade all of the sewers to
support intensifyin.g development; or, at least, 2) adopt an ordinance or some planning
regulation that spells out who pays for piecemeal sewer uIJgrades. Such an ordinance
sllould state that the party initiating the construction - or perhaps it could be defined as
any party that is increasing the number of housing units on any given lot, or any party
asking to "upzone" a lot to R-2 - mustpa)t 'the entire cost of all the se\\'er work, it1cluding
costs to reconnect any neighbors (hereinafter "itlnocellt bystanders") who are required to
have new lines because the old ones would be' disturbed by the construction. Or perhaps
the city should pay this cost. Or tIle developer and the city share the cost,
the planning documents intcl1ded to guide cit~y policy that are cited by !\1.r. N:ystrOlTI do
talk about using "public and private investment" I just h.ope that the innocent bystanders
would not have to fork over any of tllis private illvestlnent. In fact the purpose of suc.h a
rule or ordillance should be to protect the innocent bystanders fronl incurrillg significant
and sudden expenses througll no action.oftheir own. Oth.er\vise, it seen1S likely such
neighbors will.sim.ply not cooperate and bring everything to a standstilL As I understand
it, they have that power as these old.sewer lines may not be disturbed by one party alone.
Anyway, this would defeat 'the vvhole purpose or maybe require the hiring of lawyers.
In short, I believe this is a significant infrastructure problem. If the city is going to allo\v
and e\len encourage intensified development and greater density in this area, I ask t11at tile
Planning Conlmission and the City Council acknovvledge the existing sewer illadequacies
and act to avoid COl1flic~s right froIn tIle start. Barring.tllat, I think the city has no business
encoura.ging higher density \vh.en many lots in this neighborhood lack adequate access to
something as fundatne11tal as a city se\ver hookup.
l"'hank yotL
Bob Passaro
395 'J.l..17t11Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
111-3<5
Page 1 of 1
HARDING Terri L
From: TomHappy@aol.com
Sent: Monday I December 11 f 2006 11: 59 AM
To: HARDING Terri l
Subject: Jefferson HredesignationH
Dear Terri et al. I
Please support the notion of a moratorium on the redesignation of the 15 blocks of Jefferson area. It is an
abomination that this move to intensify zoning status was billed as housekeeping. The neighbors NEED to be
informed of and involved in future plans for our neighborhood. With infiU standards up for a reviewt and
opportunity siting being explored, it makes perfect sense to halt this change until enough time, thought, and
input takes place to ensure a good plan can ensue, Lars do the right thing. It starts with your decision on this.
Thanks for your time and consideration.
Si ncerely 1
Tom, Jane and Eva Happy
1546 Charnelton
Eugenel 97401
344-8968
III - 37
I
12/11/2()06
1~/7/fX(;
My name is Bob Briscoe. I own a home at 1542 Washington St, Eugene, OR
I should first say that I work for the City as a Rehab Specialist in Community
Development and that the following are personal opinions and beliefs and not
. those of the City. ,
My professional career was in mortgage lending and project development so I
have an ancillary background of land use issues. I was also a planning
commissioner with the City of Clayton so am able to appreciateithedifficult
decisions before the commission and council. My response is not the typical
"Not in my backyard" perspective. However, future land use does need to be
compatible and sensitive to existing uses.
I relocated to Eugiene from a Planned Community on the Sonoma Coast. We
had originally purchased a lot and built there because of the consistency in the
application of design. review and land uses. We knew what we were getting into
and where development was headed. .
With our purchase on Washington, I thought I had done my homework and was
. purchasing in a low density R-1 ares. Needless to say I was surprised to hear of
the overlay density. I surely can understand the pressure communities are
experiencing with density issues, but also feel that there should be balance with
existing neighborhoods, especially heritage neighborhoods where there are no
second c.hances. Higher density needs to be addressed throughout the city not
just in the downtown area.
With mortgage lending and real estate. the mantra was always location, location,
location. However from my perspective, it is more accurate to say that land use
is the real key. In closing I believe the overlay of low-medium density is simply
not appropriate nor compatible with the existing housing stock and land use for
:,'.Area 1,/
~~coe
1542 Washington St.
Eugene, OR 97401
541-338-4003
111- 38
Page 1 of 1
HARDING Terri L
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
BOZIEVICHJay (EWES)
: Wednesday I I?ecember 06,2006 10:22 AM
HARDING Terri L
Bill JOHNSON; Janice LEE; PFALLER Lon (EWES): OBERLE Mark (EWES); ,Mark WARNOCK;
DAMEWOOD Mel (EWES)
Subject: MA 06-5 Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan .and Metro PlanAmendments
EWEB Water has no objections to the Plan Amendments.
Jay Bozievich
684-4759
III- 39
12/6/2006
Page I of2
HARDING Terri L
from: Mike McCann [mmccann4@mindspring.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 05J 2006 4:38 PM
To: HARDING Terri L
Subject: Area 15 Proposal: Testimony from a shy pers.on
Dear rrerri Harding and the Plal1ningCommission,
I realize that l am late for submitting \vritten testimony. regarding the zon^!ng of Area 15 as lovi-density
residential (R-I), however, I am a shy person \\then it comes to ptlblic speaking and I can't forsee
testify'ing at the publi.c hearing tonight. (I had meant to \vrite earlier but tIle informatioll got .bllried at my
house in a pile and I missed the deadline!) I feel very strongly about supportitlgyour preservation of tIle
R-l designation in n1Y neighborllood. THA"NK YOU VERY 1\1UCH FOR KEEPING .US R-l!!
I have lived at 1545 [.Ia\vrence Street for ten years. My husband~ Mike McCann, has lived here for 12
years. We IO\fe our neighbors and the quality and livability of our neighborhood. Vle love our house
and the.11istoric, nature of the man:y houses near us. O\'er the past 7 years or so, two duplexes have been
built on L,incoln AI,Ie)r behind our property, one directly behind, o\vned b)' Mike Gansen and one just
next to that one. Before they were built, \ve had complete pri'vacy in our back)'ard, mealling that no one
could see into our backyard. No\:v, both duplexes, which are tvvO...stOl)f, look into our backyard. Al1d, of
c,ourse, they are both rentals. Vie have suffered l11any difficult elnotions alld gonethrollgh a d.efillite
" grieving process ill adjustin.g to. these duplex.es.We h.ad to mo've to a different bedroom in the front of
our house because.tlle 110ise 'became so stressful and we couldn't sleep in the mast.erbedroom an)rmore.
T'he duplexes have been rent.ed most often to you.ng college stltdents and \ve ha,re had many issu.es vvith
loud.ooise and partying happe,ning after bedtillle. We have t\VO daughters, age 4 1/2, so vve hav'e early
bedtimes and get up early \\rit.h the girls. Luckily, the o\vners of the duplexes have been fairly
responsive when there 11ave been probletTIs,but 1 wish \ve never 11ad to deal \\lith these problenls! '"fhese
duplexes are on property' located on Lincoln Street, as you know~ and it is designatedR-2.
On I-ra\vrenceStreet, \ve 11ave Stich \vonderfulneighbors. l~here is a grOut) of neigllbors \vho have lived
here for t\venty years or so and ha\'e raised their c,hildren \vho are no\vcollege age (Annie Greenberg &
Craig Huber 1538 Lu\vrenceand Jan 'Iv! agner and Chris Rubin, 1563 Lawrence). . There is also a grollp
of families \\lith sn1all children who have bee-olne friends and our children will hopefully' gro'N up
together (Julie Hohenemeser and Jesse Springer, 1574 [~a\vfence, tvvo ch.ildrell ages 7 alld 4). There are
very nice elderly p.cople 011 Otif street \vho'\re been living here for many years. There is a women's bo()k
group on Oltf street. 1\11 the neighbors sometimes get together at each oth.ers' homes. 1. am fearful that if
our zoning designation is cllanged to R-2 we \villlose the c,11aracter of our neigllborhood tllat I so much
appre,ciate. l'iincoln Street is full of rentals, .a.nd l.la\vrence is alnlost full of o\vner..occ<u.pied homes,
luan)' of \vhom have been 11ere f()r Inany years.
rrhallk you for con.siderillg IllY testinlony 'via enlail. I'm sure there are many shy people like Ole \vho
vvontt be testifying tC)11ight, but WI10 fully support your \vork.
S incerel)'r,
Sarah Petersen
. 1545 L,a\vrence St.reet
683-4652 '
III -40
12/6/2006
Page 20f2
--- Mike McCallli
--- rrunccOO114-@mindspri.ng.com
--- EarthLjnk: The #1 provider of the " Real Internet.
111-41
1"1 It:. ft')(\()J(
December 5, 2006
Eugene Planning Commission
c/ 0 Terri Harding
Eugene Planning Division
99 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Commission, Members)
One of the frrst things I immediately noticed about Eugene was how livable and well planned the city is. It's a very
desirable place to live and I realize that as Eugene grows we must increase urban population densities in order to save
wetlands and curtail sprawl, but this growth should be well planned and thought out. It should be done in a manner
that is agreeable to both the city of Eugene and to the neighborhoods and residents that will be directly affected by the
changes. Our input is invaluable. I am a designer by profession and am trained to see the importance of aesthetic
standards and cohesiveness.
I strongly encourage ypu to support adopting in-fill standards thatwill preserve the unique character of our
neighborhood. As a ~ear resident of the Jefferson Westside neighborhood, I cherish the aesthetic standards of our
homes and streets as much as I cherish the neighbors that live within it. I am therefore taking this time to encourage
you to support a moratorium on rezoning and to reopen the channels of communication with the JWN board
members in order to 'ltlork together to find a solution to the concerns we aU. share over infill..
Thank you for taking the time to hear and read the input/feedback of the people living in such a wonderful
neighborhood.
Sincerely,
~ Pad-
Sara Pritt
343 W. 16th
Eugene, OR 97401
111-42
December 5, 2006
Eugene Planning. Commission
,C/o T em Harding
I Eugene Planning Division
99 W. lOth Ave.
,'Eugellc, OR 97401
Dear Commission members,
Think about where you live. Perhaps you have a pool or hot tub in your backyard, or perhaps you and your partner
enjoy having a private dinner for 2 on warm summer evenings on you back porch. Now think about how you'd feel if
your neighbors kids were st.aring out their \vindow at you - or worse that the view~ off th.e back porch you spent all
summer building was of a nearly? 4O'high. wall. Concerns over infB1 are about more than just propert.y values - they
are often about quality of life values.
I realize that as Eugene grows we must increase population densities in order to save \vetlands and curtail sprawl, but
this grovvth should be planned and done in a manner that is agreeable to both the city of Eugene and to the
neighborhoods and. residents that "viII be directly affected by th.e changes.
'So, as a ,1ear resident of the Jefferson Westside neighborhood I was upset to hear that, in direct conllict with the
July 24 City Council mandate to ,\\rork with Jefferson WestsideN'eighbors (JWN), you failed to do so and in fact
worked against their efforts for a mutually agreeable solution~ I am therefore taking this time to encourage you to
: support a moratorium. on'rezoning and to reopen the channels of communication with the JWN board members in
order to work together to find a solution to the concerns w'e all share over infill.
I wi.sh you and your family a safe and happy holiday season..
111--43
/:z,15ICJ~
Good Evening. My name is Rene Kane and I live at 254 West 14th Avenue. I'm a co~chair of
Jefferson Wests ide Neighbors.
I'd like to talk a bit about Area 15 and its history... and more importantly its future.
When Jefferson residents crafted the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan in the earlY1980s,
they included in Area 15 an intact, healthy single-family section of the neighborhood that
spans both north and south of the Amazon Canal. Both sections of Area 15 share common
characteristics of older homes with similar setbacks, lot plans, and architectural features.
A walk around Area 15 today confirms that residential development on Jefferson and
Washington streets remains relatively uniform both north and south of the Amazon Canal,
and there is no natural division between the character of these two sections of Area 15.
Consequently, without an adequate public process to assess potential changes to the
boundaries of subareas defined in the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan, Area 15 should
not be partitioned by any amendment being considered.
Splirting Area 15 would be contrary to the intent of Jefferson residents on the planning team
that developed a vision for this neighborhood's future, and would unnecessarily fragment the
neighborhood.
I'd also like to talk a bit about how important this part of the Jefferson neighborhood is to
those of U$ who live outside those 15 blocks. All of us, inside and outside Area 15, appreciate
our that area's character and have a large stake in its stability and future.
This year I had more trick-or~treaters at my door than in the previous 14 years. There are
families with children in this neighborhood and many of them live in Area 15. lUke that and if
we are to have true diversity in JWN, we must accommodate families. In my experience,
triplexes and four-plexes shoehorned into backyards don't do that very well., and this type of
thoughtless, destabilizing development no more belongs anywhere in Area 15 than it does in
th.e rest of the JWN's heritage neighborhoods.
There's another reason we need to think carefully about how Area 15 (and the rest of
Jefferson neighborhood) is developed; I've lived on the Amazon canal for 15 years and I've
seen the surges in high water flow become more dramatic over the last 10 years. It was 1 foot
from the top earlier this year and even higher during the 1996 floods. If we cut in half the
amount of pervious surfaces in our neighborhoods by adding more rooftops, more driveways,
and more onsite parking that willbe necessary with R2~scale development, we'll inevitably
see a subsequent rise in water volume in the Amazon. I hate to lose the capacity of our urban
^ landscape to cope ,,yjth fluctuations ill stormwater.
Finally, remember this is a temporary fix. Neighbors are poised and ready to take the next
step to guide sensible infill in our neighborhoods. We just don't want to lose this one in the
meantime.
111..44
/2>/.5 ftJ(,
My name is Janice Gotchall. I live at 1461 W. 10th, I am here in support ofthe
proposed amendments.
One of City Council's adopted Growth Management policies requires new
development maintain the character and livability of neighborhoods.
Goal # 6 states: "Increase density of new housing development while maintainina the
. character and livability of individual neighborhoods."
Note that the goal does not say, "increase density..... regardless ofthe cha racter and
livability of individual neighborhoods". Or, "increase density. ..at all costs". Nor does it
say, that "increasing density trumps all other concerns".
For too long, the second part Goal 6 has simply been ignored by planning staff.
The re-designation of the Jefferson area from low density to medium density is a
case in point. This change should never have occurred without a parallel effort to
define standards to assure new development maintains the area's character and
livability.
Residents of Area 15 are asking that both parts of the Goal #6 sentence be honored.
I urge you to follow Council's direction and support the temporary re-designation of
Area 15 tor a period of 18 months period during which the necessary standards to
comply with Goal 6 are developed.
On another note, I'd like to remark that citizens of this neighborhood and all other
neighborhoods have the right to live in healthy, stable, neighborhoods and should be
able to work to assure the health and stability of their neighborhoods without being
subjected to name-calling and personal attacks such as we have recently seen in the
Eugene Weekly and in e-mails sent to public interest group list serves.
As a result of a flawed publiC process that neglected to adequately inform or engage
residents, a large part of Area 15 was essentially thrown open to unlimited R-2
development, which allows hugely out-ot-scale, inappropriate structures to be built in
the heart of a historically single-family area. Residents are seeking to prevent the
harm that could result from this mistake while they work for appropriate development
standards to be adopted. There is no crime in this.
In most communities, residents are encouraged to become involved, to volunteer
time and energy to improve their neighborhoods. Here in Eugene, people who do so
find themselves derided as NIMBYs, snobs, elitists, or worSe - and are dismissed by
some individuals for being unwilling to "take their medicine" -- too selfish to sacrifice
their homes and neighborhoods to accommodate density at any cost.
Those of us who cherish our neighborhoods should not be scorned as enemies of
our community. People seeking to prevent the decline of their neighborhoods
deserve support and respect from city leaders and staff.
Thank you.
111..46
Ie I.. ~- }.O: (,
.~ ',-'" .f. \~..
f'
j./t/t. vtt, I Z/ '"';) l Vi .
j
< , t
(.J.~ lA~'\.v
(.1./;')
ce
({ t.f... /
I\.
"/1 f
.1 &' ,/$~t ~.T' e
)<,
//'
."R.r;J CL
t
I-t}~.. lU..e....
I.' ,!./( /~ ,. L;,
iT t..'t... c'<t,.c.~
t'{;..../_(___
(' bu:l<;>.....J.j -f:;:d~._.kf " ""'" ~ .f
t." ('h
It ..i ~/~ ()'/,,-.)
"
_&<-'-' ~Q.;:L_~~~k~i ~~:
(j-7~.,,--,i!
Cv.eTJ/t-"~/\.~,~~_~L':r"4/"- C/.()
C:/<L<<:
.t.A.,yJ....-.-{-',_ '. "
{.Lf--<::'<-"C.JJ...__
0:. ./f....'..__. .
i....{
/'*
!-
f .
t.:~ "\M' .e.......::)
\
}
.f
~t
111-45
HARDING Terri L
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
MUIR Susan L
Tuesday, December 05,2006 4:26 PM
*EugenePlanning Commissioners
YEITER Kurt M; HARDING Terri L
"Area 15"
Planning Commissioners - I want to let you know that I have designated Kurt Yeiter to aetas. the Planning Director for the
decision making process on Area 15. Lisa Gardner owns ,property in that sub-area and I have ask~d her to stay clear of
the decision making process on this specific case/action.
Outside of this specific casel I look forward to Lisa playing an active and lead role in the relationship with this
neighborhood as well as others across the City.
Kurt win. be attending the meeting tonight and will enter this into the record for clarity. Please tet me know if you have any
questions.
Thanks, Susan
111"-47
&~
SUMMARY MI.NUTES
Study Session
Eugene Planning Commission
City Hall Council Chalnber
777 Pearl Street
PRESENT:
December 5, 2006
5 :30p.ln.
Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, A.nn
Kneeland, Anthony M.cCown, members; Terri I-farding, Steve Nystrom, Planning
and, Development Depa.rt:tnent.
ABS'EN'T:
John Lavvless, Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
STUD\T SESSION TO REVIEW AGENDA OF DECEMBER 5,2006
Jefferson/Far West (l\1.A 06-5, RA 06..3, CA 06-1)
Sta.ff: rr erri Harding, 682-5635
M I N {J T, E S
~,
Study' Session
Eugene Planning Commission
City Hall Council Chamber
777 Pearl Street
('
December 5, 2006 '
5 :30 p.m.
, PRESENT:
Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, 'Randy Hledik, Ann
Kneeland, Anthony McCo\\'n, members; Terri Harding~ Steve N'ystrotn, Planning
and-Development Departnlent;
ABSENT:
John La\vless, Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
STUDY SESSION TO RE\'lEW AGENDA OF DECEMBER 5, 2006
Ms. Harding stated that the purpose of the study session \vas to review the agenda for the
De,cember 5, 2006 Public l-learing on a proposed :tvietro Plan Amendlnent~ the Jefferson/Far West
RefinenlentPlan Amendment and Land Use Code Amendnlcnt for a portion of t.he Jefferson
neighborhood kno\v as {(Area 15" in tne refinement plan. The are.a subject to this request is
located south of Vi est Thirteenth A venue, east of the Lane County fairgrounds, and north of West
Eighteenth ,Avenue. The eastern boundary follo\vs portions of Lincoln Alley, ChaOlelton Alley,
and Willamette Alley., The area is \vhony \vithin the Eugene city limits. Maps of the subject
areas shoVvting the existing and proposed Metro Plan and Refinenlent Plan designations \vere
included as Attachtuent A in the agenda packet, and \vere on display in the Council Chamber.
The request included approval of the foHo\ving:
. 'lvietroPllln Amendlnent (City file ~1A 06..5) to anlend the Metro Plan land use diagrafn
frOll1' a designation of ~1ediutn ,Density Residential to a designation of Lo\v Density
Residential for the subject area.
AFT
· Refinement Plan An1endlnent (City file RA 06-3) to ame,nd the Je({erson/Far West
Refinement Plan land use diagram from a designation of Low...Medium Density
Residential to a designation of LovvDensity Residential for the subject area and amend
the text by revising the description of the subject area's plan designation.
· Code Amendn1ent (City file CA 06-1) to revise the language codifying the refinement
plan potie,y describing the area's plan desigt)ation.
Ms. Harding stated that t\\/o additional pieces of \\lritten testimony had been submitted after the
staff report \vas publisbed. Copies of those letters, from John Detvveiler dated N'ovemher 28,
2006, and from David Hinkley dated December 5,2006 had been placed at the Comtnissioners'
seats.
In, response to M.T. Belcher, Ms. Harding stated the public hearing \vas.legislative rather than
quasi-judicial, and c,onfirmed that Commissioners did not need to be concerned about ex parte
contacts.
Ms. Harding responded to questions subQ1itted via email froln Planning Conllnissioners.
Question: HIn Attachnlent B, pages 7 and 8, the titles of the proposed code language are listed as
lo\v to medium density, yet that phrase in the 111ain body of the test is changed froRl 10\\' to
mediulll density to lovV' density. So shouldn't \ve change the title of that Area 15 section?"
Response: Yes, especially if the Planning Comlnission recomtuended approval of the
applications as proposed. If it re,c,ommended changing the designation for only a portion,
then the title vv'ollld need modification. For example, there was S0111e discussion
mentioned in the staff report about the difference bet,:veen the area north of Alnazon
channel and the area south of Anlazon channel. 1ft-he Planning Comnlission
reC0t11t11ended a change that differentiated those t\VO, it \vQuld need to be reflected in the
text and in the title.
In response to a question from M.r. Duncan, Ms. lIarding said language regarding the potential
code change sunset linlit ,vould be incorporated into any City Cotlncil ordinance adopting the
l-
lL.
<(
a::r:
c
amendments.
Question: A question ,vas submitted about the density difference bet\veen the. current R-2code
and that which \vas i.n pIa.ce in 1983 when the refinement plan was adopted, as related to the
infornlation in the agenda packet submitted by Paul Conte aild Rene Kane.
Response: Expanding on the staff report, in 1983, \vhen the refi.nement plan \vas
adopted the R;..2 zone allowed ten to nventy units per net acre, and it specified a mininlum
lot size of2,650 square fe.et. This minimum lot size translated to a net density of 16.4 .
units per acre for new lots. Existing lots \\/ould allo\\' up to 20 units per acre. The
exalnple lot \vas a 5,000 square foot lot \vhich in 1983\vould aIlo\v one or hvo units, the
minimum density range. Currently, the land use code density limitations in R-2 aHo\ved
10 to 28 per net acre and \vhich \vas a change that was effective \\lith the adoption of
LUCU. Sm.alllot provisions allowed the nlinimutn lot size toJ)e reduced to 2250 square
feet. In LUCU the City Council included new rounding provisions for calculating .
dens it), . Calculating for the minimum density allo\ved, the code sp~cified rounding down
. to the next ,,,hole number, and for calculating maximum aUow'ed, the code specified
rounding up to.the next whole number. On the sample lot of 5.,000 square feet, the code
no\-v required a nlinimum of one unit \vhich was the same, and a maximum of four.
Question: Provide some background and analysis on the impact this \vould have on the overall
potential residential density of Area 15, specifically clarifying the discussion found on page 12 of
the staff report pertaining to Goal 10.
Response: The City Attorney had confirmed that for compliance \vith Goal 10 it \vas not
necessary to quantify the potential difference in number of units for the findings the
Planning Comnlission needed to adopt because the area was not included in the City of
Eugene's adopted inventol)' of available residential land. Ho\vever~ ifthere\vas a
difference bet\veen the calculations allo\ved for the nlaxinlum betvveen the designations,
under the existing medium density residential designation, staff expected the subject area
to graduaHy infiH over tittle, similar to \vhat bad happe,ned north of the channe.1. Four of
thirty-six parcels \vere nO\\l zoned R-2, having been rezoned during the past 20 years.
This \vas the area that ,vas alre.ady designate.d me.dium densit)'~ by the Metro Plan prior to
itnplenlentation of the housekeeping anlendments.Although unlikely, if the entire area,
l-
LL
-c:c
cr:
including south of the channel were rezoned to R-2, complete.redevelopment could result
in an esthnated total potential of 1 ,085 d~!elling units. This calculation was based upon a.
gross lot analysis according to Goal 10 guidelines. Ms. Harding explained the formula
used to calculate the number of dwelling units. The actual number of units could be
higher depending upon the exact lot sizes. and the density round up prov.ision contained in
the land use code. The impact to the. adopted inventory was negligible under Goal 1. 0
requirements. Staff felt the practical reduction in potential units was likely less than the
analysis demonstrated be,~ause the area ,vas not expecte,d to be completely redeveloped in
the next 20 years.
Question: Could you check to see if there \vas a past action similar t.o this one that imposed a
change in zoning classification temporarily versus pennanently?
Response: Staff \vas not proposing to change zoning, rather the plan designation. There
had been other plan aUlendluentsapproved \vitha revert back clause. M.s. Harding cited
the McKenzie WHlamette Medical Center Memorandum of U.nderstanding (MOD) which
specified that if a hospital was nofbuilt on the property, it ,vould revert to its prior land
use designation? adding the current situat.ion was unique and there \vere no identical
examples.
Question: Why are the Gro\\'ih M.anagement Policies (GMP) not criteria to be considered in land
use decisions?
Response: '}"'<he resolution that adopted the GMP Section 3 read: "The policies adopted
. by Sect.ion 1 shall not be used in determining vvhether the City shall approve or deny
individual land use applications. Instead, the policies \vo\dd be implelne~ted through the,
Council's actions in amending the Eugene Code 1971 and in actions other then code
changes such as adopting the City budget and Capital Inlprovement Program." When
that resolution \vas adopted by the previous Cou.ncil,it \vas deternlined that the policies
vvere, not sufficiently clear and obje,ctive for inclusion as land use decision making
criteria.
In response to a question from M.f. I-Iledik, !vis. I~Iu.rding understood that this area ""as not
included in t.he residential lands inventory because it \vas mostly built out. (fhe maps in the
l-
LL.
<C
a::
c
residential lands study.showed larger vacant parcels that \vere available for residential
development and made assumptions about ho\\' nluch growth could be accommodated on those
vacant lands. There ,vere no parcels large enough in the area. in question for them to be included.
Responding to Mr. Carron, Ms. Harding understood that a sunset clause that would be \vritten
\
into die ordinance would revert the land use designation back to medium density on the Metro
Plan and lo\v to medium on" the refinement plan. She added that the phrase historic character was
used in tbe written staff response because the JWN \vas not officially designated as historic-.
In response to Ms. Kneeland, IvIr. Yeiter explained the hierarchy for approval of the proposed
amendments. required consistency \\lith the Metro Plan, thus the Metro Plan needed to be.
amended prior to the refinement plan or code amendments..
Responding to Mr.. Hledik) ~1.r. Yeiter confirmed that the City Council established the 2008
sunset date in anticipation that the Planning Commission \\-'Quld have better infill tools in place to
insure compatibility of ne\v construction b)! that time.. Refen"ing to the original City Council
September II, 2006 motion, Ms. Harding added that further Council action could be to extend the
sunset date.
Mr. Yeiter, in response to Mr. Carroll, stated the Planning Commission had a history OfUlovillg
through the hierarchy of approval of proposed amendtTI.ents in a short tinic span, that is to say, at
the same meeting.
f\1s. Ilarding, responding the Mr. Hledik, asserted that the action before the Plannin.g Conlnlission
\vas a policy decision. The area north of the Amazon channel was not affected by the recent v
housekeeping amendments because it was already medium density designation on the Metro Plan
diagranl. If the Pla.nning Commission excluded that from its recommendation, an.d recon1111ended
that the rest revert to IO\\-t density, the area north of the channel would have the potential to rezone
to R-2 \vith site revie\\t overlay on a ca.se..by-case basis as 'R-2 \vascurrently defined.
In response to Mr. Belcher, Ms. Harding opined that t\\'o of the properties identified in a M.ay 24,
tnemora.ndutn from fv1s. :Nluir to the Cit)! Council, ,vere on the south side of the channel.
Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Conlrnissionmeeting at 6:05 p.nl.
(Ree,orde,d by Linda Henry)
m: \2006\planning and developtnent departJnent\planning division\planning commission\pc061205ss.doc
J-
cr::
Q
SUMMARY MINUTE.S
Public Hearing
Eugene Planning Commission
Cou~cil Chamber, Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street
December 5, 2006
6:00 p.m.
PRE SE-NT:
Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Can~oH, R.andy Hle.dik, Ann
Kneeland, Anthony MCCO'VIl, members; Terri Harding, Steve Nystrom, Planning
and Development Departlnent.
ABSENT:
John Lawless, Mike Sullivan, ex officio.
PUBLIC HEARING: JEFFERSON/FAR WEST (MA06-5, RA06-3, CA 06-1)
Mr. Belcher, sec-onded by Mr. McCown, luoved, based
upon the requests froln t\\tO membe-rs of the public, alld
t\vel\'e pages of\vritten~testimony recei,red, to leave the
record open for one' week. The motion passed
unanilnously.
Staff: Terri Harding, 682-5635
.f\1INUtrEs....~.Eugene Planning C0l11ll1ission
Pub 1 ie Hearing
Deceluber 5~ 2006
Page 1
MINUTES,
Public H,earing
Eugene Planning Commission
Council Chamber, Eugene City Hall
777 Pearl Street
December 5, 2006
. 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT:
Rick Duncan, Vice President; Jon Belcher, Phillip Carroll, Randy Hledik, Ann
Kneeland, Anthony McCo\vn, members; Terri Harding, Steve Nystrom, Planning
and 'Development Department.
ABSENT:
John La\vless, Mike S.ullivan, ex officio.
PUBLIC HEARING: JEFFERSONIFAR WEST (MA 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1)
MJ. Duncan convened the Planning Commission. He explained the Com.tnissioners \vere unpaid
volunteers appointed to four year terms by the Eugene City Council, \vho tnet several tinles eac.h
month to discuss planning project and proposals, and make recommendations to the Cit)! Council
on those issues. He furth~rexplained the process follov./ed by Commission in making
recommendations to the City Council. He said this public hearing was an opportullity for
members of the public to provide fe,edback on the staff recom.mendation. He said it ,vas
important for speak.ers to address their'COlnments to the approval criteria tlpOn \vhich the.
. .
Commission Inust base its recoinmendation.
Planning COlumissioners.and staff introduc.ed themselves.
Mr. Yeiterread the fono\vinge~nlail correspondence dated De.cenlber 5,2006 from Planning and
Developtnent Executive ~1anager Susan. Muir: HPlanning Commi.ssioners: I want to let you
rv1INUTES-~.",.Eugene Planning COH1111ission
Public Hearing
December 5, 2006
Page 'I
ftI
'j
JJ..
c:(
a:
lJ.lIllll
" know that I have designated Kurt Yeiter to act as tbe Planning Director for the decision making
process on Area 15. Lisa Gardne~ 0'V118 property in that su~area and I -have asked her to- stay
clear oftbe decision making process on this specific caselaction. Outside" of this specific case, I
I.ook forward to Lisa playi~g an active and lead role in the relationship with this neighborhood as
well as others ac.ross the City. Kurt ,vill be attending the meeting tonight and \viII enter this into
.the record for clarity. Please let me kno\v if you' hirve any questions. Thank-you."
Ms. Harding explained that the Planning Commission had three applications that were initiated by
the City Council on Se-ptenlber 11, 2006 to consider:
· Me~ro Plan A111en.dment (City til.e RA 06..,5) to alnendthe }vieIro Plan land use diagram
from a designation of Medium Density Residential to a designation of Lo\v Density
Residential for the subject area.
. RelinementPlan Amendl1tent (City file RA 06-3) to amend the Jeffersort/FarJVest
Refinement Plan land use. diagram from a designation of Lo,v...Mediutn Density
Residential to a designation of Lo\v Densit)l Residential for the subject area and afnend
the text by revising the description of the subject area's plan designation.
. C"fode .Amendrnent (City file 06-1) to revise the language codif)ring the refinenlent plan
policy describing the area's plan designation.
Ms. Harding stated in 2004, the Cit)! Council adopted a series of housekeeping a.mendnlents to
the Metro Plan, one of \-",hieh ,vas an attempt to reconcile the subject arc-R' s i\1etro Plan
designation with. its Refinell1ent Plan designation and policy description by switching the area
from Lo\v Density toi\1ediunl Density Residentia.l on the ~1etro Plan diagram. Once this change
became effective, neighborhood leade.rs approa.cbed the City Counc-il for solution to \\That they
felt \vas the threat of too much, inappropriately designed infill development allo,ved if properties
\veredesignated ivledium Density Residential and thus eligible for rezoning to "R-2. Ine City
Council revie\ved seve-ral options to address the concern, and decided to initiate t.hese
alnendlllents to change. both the Metro Plan and the Refine111ent Plan to 1..,.ow Density Residential.
At their September 11,2006 m.eeting, the foHo"ving motion "vas passed:
HJ move to initiate G111endlnent of the ~1etro Plcln, the ~1}?J1l Refinement Plan and the Land LIse
~4INUTES~Eugerle PlanningCoulnlission
Public Hearing
December 5, 2006
Page 2
l-
LL.
-=c
a:
c
Code!o limit the subject area to 'Loli! Density Reside.ntial develop.ment. In addition, direct the
City Manager to make this task one of the high priority tasks on the Planning Cornmission work
plan and to accomplish this as quickly as p~actictJble lvithin the parameters of the amendment
process. Unless Council takes further action l1lith regard to the subject area} the su~iect area
shall revert to allolil L01'V- to Medium....Density Residential developnlent on July 1, 2008. "
Ms. H~rding asserted, based on conversations,vith th~ City Attorney that it \vas staff
understanding that the Council intended to return the area to its current Medium Density
Residential designation when the City had adopted standards to address the n~ighborho~d's
concerns about infilI compatibility. The Council chose the July 1, 2008 date as a likely date by
which the,Citywould have such infill standards in place. Inpre,paring a draft ordinance for this
matter, the City Attorney's office ,~rould incl,ude language that would automatically return the
area to its Medium Density Residential designation on July 1, 2008. If the City adopted infiH
standards before that date, it ~ay adopt an ordinance to return'the area to the Medium Density
Residential designation sooner. If by July 1, 2008, the City had not adopted infill standards, the
Council could adopt an ordinance to extend the application.ofthe Low Density Residential
designation to the area.
Ms. Harding stated that the reference to "the su~jectarea" in the above Council motion \vas
ambiguous. In previous discussions about the area on August 16, 2006, Council motions referred
to Area 15 as,described in the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan. Therefore, tb,e staff report
e,valuated changing all of Area 15 to Lo\\' Density ,Residential. Ho\vever, the portion of Area 15
north of Amazon C:ree~ was already designated M,edium Density Residential on the Metro Plan
diagram prior to the housekeepillg amendments being adopted. The, Planning Commission may
,,,ish to modify the boundaries of the subject area to exclude properties located north of AUlazon
Creek according to their int~rpretation of the City Council nlotion.
M,s. Harding stated the staff report included correspondence received before the packet \vas
mailed. Additionally, letters from John Det\veiler and David Hinkley, received after the packet
"vent out, had been placed at the Commissioners' seats and\vould be, included in the; public
record.
Ms. Harding said, based on the available infornlation and materials in the record} and the attached
preliminary findings, staff recommended approval of the Metro Plan anlendment, Refinetnent
MINUTES~E,ugene Planning C:omulission
Public I-Iearing
December 5, 2006
Page 3
1....-./..... . ... ..
.---
u..
.cc
a:
c
Plan Amendment and Code- Amendment. The- Planning Com~ission may wish to modify the
boundaries of the- subjec-t area to exclud.e- properties locate-d north of AmazonCbann,el (\vhpse
land use designation was not amended during the 'Metro Plan update process), according to their
interpretation of the City Council motion.
-MT. Duncan opened the public he,aring. He explained speakers ,,,Quid be limited to three ,minutes
for testim.ony. He asked if any Comnlissioners had made site visits.
Mr. Belcher stated he had reside.d in the Jefferson Wests ide Neighborhood since 1979~ had
traversed through the area significantly, and had been involved in land use dec,isions in his
position. as co....chair of the neighborhood organization.
Mr. Carroll \vas fatniliar with the area, and had viewed it recently.
Mr. Duncan said he \\lark as a real estate appraiser had taken him through the area ulany times in
20 years, and he \vas very familiar ,vith the neighborhood.
Ms. Harding read the fonowing testimony from Doris Rc}rnolds, 2281 Jefferson Street:
"Planning Comnlission, I am seriously against changitlg the zoning to alIo,,! apartment buildings
for up to eight units in the \\'illamette to Jefferson and 13th to 18th neighborhood. This is a
neighborhood I have lived around,for 30 ye-ars. I do feel \'\te need- infil1 but I think it \vQuld be
better to do it throughout all the city 011 appropriate land spots,ho'\vever appropriate is
determined. But to .do all the infill in one neighborhood \\'ill foreverc~hange the feel of that area
\vhereas a fe\v apartlnents in each neighborh.ood would have less impact one-ach. Also, I believe
the PlanningComlnission could. look at the criteria 'for small individua.l infillliving spac,es. I
have kno,vn of two people wanting to turn existing structures into rental living spaces and did not
'because the fees \Nere cost prohibitive. Couldn't you make it feasible for an individual to create a
small rental out of a gar age or studio space or is it infiUjust for the big developers. W'hat about
doing something really creative like eliminating fe.es in exchange for guaranteed lo\v-incOfile
rents?"
Charles Biggs, 540 Antelope \\lay, said he did not live in the area but e~xpressedconc-ern ,vhether
.this \>vould address how this problern occun.ed or ~\vas it unique and unlikely to happen again. l'Ie
"vas concerned that during the stud)!' session this vvas.identified .as a le-gislative rat.her than quasi-
MINUTES-Eugene Planning (~onlmission
Public liearing
Decelnber 5, 2006
Page 4
l-
LL.
<(
a::
c
judicial land use decision, and w~s at'a loss to on how to speak to legislative matters. He was
concerned tbat during the interim period, ifsomeone \vanted to develop large parcels, they \vould
limited or prohibited from doing so, so that they could have only one structure on a lot regardless
of the lot size. He sought for c.Jarification on the issue.
Addressing Mr. Biggs testimony regarding the public hearing format, Mr. Yeiter asserted that this
was a land use action, so that the criteria~ testimony, and decision making process was tbe same
as that for a land use applications, for \'vhich Mr. Bigg,shad'testified for in the past Mr. Veiter
explained that the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial \vas that f04f quasi:iudicial, if
there was an applicant, perSOll or small body of people who stood to benefitb.y a.
decision,.the..rules ch.ange slightl)' s~ that it was set'up.more like a judicial judge process,
with more separation so that the applicant was notun.duly influencing the decisiol1
makers. In this case, \\tith hundreds of properties, the legislative process was appropriate.
Mr. Yeiter concurred with Mr. Belcher's statement tIlat a legislative process wrote the
la\v, while a quasi-judicial process int.erpreted the la\\'.
Responding the t\1r.Hledik, Mr. Yeiter confirmed that it was appropriate 'for
Comnlissioners to ask 'q.uestions of those testifying.
Paul Conte, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, identified himself as co-chair of the J\VN and
said he was speaking on behalf of the neighborhood association. He said the J\VN 'voted
unanilnously on September 12, 2006, to recommend approval of tIle ,proposed plan and
co4e alnendments. Neighborhood support for the proposals was broad and. deep.
Petitions'signed b)To\ler 135 residents of Area 15, ov~er 100 people ill other J\\~ areas,
al1d almost 100 peo:ple froflloutside the J\VN had been submitted. He said COUllCii
support was clear v'lith six Councilors \Toting to illitiate the amen.dments.He said critical
facts included this \vasnot a dOwll...zoningaction, no property \vouid have ZOlle ch.anged
by the.a,n1.el1dnlellts. The planaluendments ,;vould reUlovea majordiscrepa,nc)r bet\veen.
the plan's current designations and tbe area's existing zonillg of de"velopment. Oftl1.e
approximately 255 residential properties in Area 15, all but sev'ellwerezone,dR-l.Tlle
proposed atnendn1.ents vvere temporary and vvould sunset ill about 18 nlonths. Tlleir
MINUTES~Euget1e Plann.ing Cornrnission
Public Hearing
December 5, 2006
Page 5
l-
LL.
a:
c
purpose was to provide temporary protection to prevent unrestricted R,.2 development
from destabilizing this healthy, mostly single family area. It was important for the
Planning Commission to recognize they were not recommending a permanent re~side,ntial
de,nsity for the area. Council had st.ated the intent of the action was to ". . . pause the
negative alld inappropriate infill. The long term solution for this and other established
ne.ighbo~hoods is to inlplement appropriate infill compatibility stalldardsand an effective
opportunit)r siting process." The need for this temporary protection was now more urgent
than ever because staff had taken a position in a November 15, 2006 decision that Area
15 policy places no restrictions on the scale, densit:y or design of R-2 develop'ment
allo\ved throughout Area 15 under the current medium densit.y designation. This Inetlnt
the incompatible and destabilizing infill being built in other R-2 zoned areas of JWN
posed a similar threat to the area's character andli'vability. This area of JWN \vas an
irreplaceable c.olnnlunity asset. He urged the Planning Commission to take the necessary
steps to assure Eugene \vQuld 110t lose more neighborhoods as it lost Vv'est University.
Mr. Hledik ask.e;d if Mr. Conte and the neighborhood were aware that the area north of
the Amazon Channel bet\veen West Thirteenth Avenue and West Fourteenth A've11uewas
already designated medium densit:y in the Metro- Plan \Vllen it asked tIle eit)! Council to
take the proposed action, and therefore not affected by the housekeeping amendments.
fIe further asked if it \vas the neighborhood's intent to affect onI)! those areas affected by
the housekeeping, or if the intent was to inclllde the area north of the Amazon Channel.
Mr. Conte replied residents of the area had sought to get cOlnpatihility standards in effect
for tIle entire parts of JWN threatened. by R...2 development. The action was triggered by
becoming a\vare of the redesignation that was done "ritlloutresident input. JVlN leaders
opined it made sellse to not to bifurc,ate Area 15 because it ,vas C,Ollsistent bet\veen
northeT11 and southern parts.
Rene Kane, 254 VvTest Fourteent.h A'vellue, identitle,d herselfa.s co-chair. of tile J\\rN and
said she ,vas speakillg. on behalf ofth.e n.eighborhood association. She said \i\rhen the
residents crafted tIle Jefferson FarvvestRefiu.ement Plan in tIle 1980' s) they included Area
t\1INtJI1:S-Eugene Planning COU1111ission
PublicH.earing
December 5, 2006
Page 6
....1--
LL
IIIC(
a:
c
15 as an intact, healthy,. single-family section of the neighborhood that spanned both
north and south of the Amazon. Channel. Both sides shared characteristics of older
homes with similar setbacks, lot plans and architectural features. Observation confirmed
that residential development on Je,fferson and Washington Streets renlained relatively
uniform on both sides of the channel. Without an adequate public . process to change the
boundaries' of sub-areas defined in the refine.ment plan, Area 15 s110uld not be partitioned
by the amendment under consideration. Splitting Area 15 would.be contrary to tIle intent
of planning team residents that would unnecessarily fragment the neighborhood. She
said all of the residents} inside and outside of Area 1.5 appreciated the area's character
and have a stake in its stability and future. .There \vere families with children in the
neighborhood, and families must be accommodated to provide truedi,rersity in JWN.
Triplexes and fourplexes shoehorned into backyards did not provide this. T'his
destabilizing development did not belong in Area 15 as well as in the.JWN heritage
neighborhoods. Reducing the amount of pervious surfaces in the neighborhood by addillg ,
rooftops, onsite. parking, and drivewaysnecessat)l' \vith R-2 scale development, meant a
subsequent rise in the water level in the Amazon Channel was ine~vitable. Tllis \vas a
temporary fix, an.d neighbors \vere ready to guide sensible de\relopment in the
neighborhood.
Matt Sl\rite, 1424 Washington Street~ said his family searched for six lnollths b.efore
buying a house in JVv~ because of the character of the neighborhood, because it \vas a
safe, stable neigllborhood. He understood the neighborhood was zoned R -1 and \vas
sllocked to learn that-t.his Vlas n.ot n.ecessarily the case. He asked that the Plal1nillg
Com.mission not ruin the character of the neighborhood by al1o\ving triplexes alld
fourplexes. I-Ie added. that the J\\lN contributed to a healthy dOWlltO""TI. lIe ul1derstood
that infill was needed but it needed to be done ill a thouglltfulmanner.
Steven Franzen, 1727 La\vrence Street, stated he llad lived at this address since 1975.
Durillg this time, he had seen the neighborhood revitalized, "'lith renovation of derelict
housing b)r n.e\~r residellts, and an increased desirability. of the 11eigh.borhood. R-2 zoning
\vould deprive residents of pri\racj\ be out of scale \;\lith the existing houses, al1d bring an
M.l.NlJ1"'ES-Eugene Planning C011101ission
Publ ie l-learing
I)ecenlber 5, 2006
Page 7
I-
u..
<
unprecedented level of noise and traffic. Many such apartment buildings\vou.ld change
the character of the neighborhood due to parking, noise, traffic and crime. He asked the
Commission to consider the university neighborhood that had that type of housing~ noting
the University of Oregon (DO) students had moved from the universitjT neighborhood to
escape the noise and crime. He asserted R-2 designation would e'ventuall~y hand the
neighborhood over to developers, investors, and absentee landlords ""lhodid not have a
stake in the livability' ~f the neighborhood. He asked for a less extreme plan., that would
limit the height of buildings to conform to existing. stru.ctures that would help alleviate the
spra\vl of illcreasedpopulation and maintain the desirability of the neighborhood.
Angela Rooney, 521 Vvr est Fifteenth Avenue, said she lived in a rn,odest home and lived
on a limited pension. She can still afford to own a home in the JWN which is a safe
neighborhood in which she can ,,,ralk to stores, the library and her church. She did not
\vant to shut people out of the neighborhood but did not want to lose tIle livability
because of inappropriate .infill.
Michael Webb, 1492 VlashingtonStreet, had been a homeo\\ner ill the JWN for
eighteen )'cars. He asserted future planning ShOll1d preserve the c,haracter and safety of
the neighborhood. He regularly observed hundreds of pedestrians and bikers used tIle
street and Alnazonpath foraltemative transportation alldexercise. Increasing densit)!
\vould also increase automobile llse. Safety and alternative transportation should be
COllsidered in .planning. Area 15 ""vas a diverseneighborllood consisting of primarily
single-falnilyd\vellings with some smaller scale rental properties such as duplexes and
multiplexes that had been built ill sc,ale with other neighborhood houses that housed
single people, single. parent families, college stll.dents, arId families that ~o'Vvlled or rel1ted
the properties they Ii'ved on.. TIle lleighborhood asked government leade-rs to careful I)!
consider and adopt infill standards for future gro\\rth to ellable the resid.ents to elljoy t:~eir
neighborhood theyc,are a.bout.
Alice Colocoat, .1331 VvYashington Street~ north of Anlazon Creek, lladmo\!ed fronl tIle
\VestIJniversit)1 N'eighborhood (\\t1JN) \vhen the neighborhood ch.a.r,lcter changed. She
MINUl<ES~Eugene Planning C01111111Ssion
Public. Hearing
Dec,enlber 5~ 2006
Page 8
I--
LL.
<(
a:
c
asserted Amazon Creek in no way divided the neighborhood, with houses and their
characters identical. She described a badly 'designed and sited structure that had been
built adjacent to her property that presented loss of privacy for her famil~y. She did not
object to infill but felt sO,me restrictions and well thought out plans were necessary.
Sara Pritt~ 343 West Sixteenth Avenue, read from a prepared statement, which
addressed Eugene's livability and growtll.She encouraged adoption of in fill standards
that would preserve the unique ch.aracter of her neighborhood. As a renter she cllerished
her neighbors an.d the characteristics of the neighborhood, and felt her 110use exhibited
good intill standards.
David Hinkley, 1351 LaVvTrence,#l, stated his comments were his 0\V11, and he did not
represent any organization \vith which he was affiliated. He understood the oppositioll to
inappropriate illfill, and needed to be addressed through design standards. lIe \\'as
opposed to the pro~posed amendments. He disagreed ~ith the staff evaluation presented
in the agenda packet. He said it was contrary to two statewide plalmiI1g goals,
inconsistellt with the Metro Plan, tIle JVlN Refinement Plan., and the adopted goals and
policies of the Grovvth Management Study. He said becRl.lseofthe sunset provision the
proposed changes had no effect, due in part to Ballot 1vleasure 37 implications.
Sea.n McClusk)', 1640 La\vrence Street, heard people talk about the historic
characteristics of tIle neighborhood, ~rllich was a reason why he chose to live in the
n~ighborhood. He asked if there \vere qu.alitative standards for desigll that 'Vvouldenable
the neighborhood association to dra~r up qualitative guidelines that used precedence and,
site specific studies that could be, used as a nleasure for appropriate infill standards. He
asked what th~e long tenn goal was to preserve the positi\!e thin.gs about the neighborhood
while not. limiting future options.
Ja.ck Denveiler, 1757 La.\Vrel1ce. Street, was a long tiIne resident of theneigh.borllood.
He supported mail1taining the R-l zonillg for the area. He encouraged infill restrictions,
such as height restrictions, and encouraged Hgrann)/~flats n alollg alleys. He\vas
MINUTES-Eugene PlanningC:ofllll1ission
Public Hearing
I)ecetnber 5, 2006
Page 9
I--
LL
c:c
a:
o
concenled'about the lack of notice and lack of opportunity fOf the public and the.
neighborhood to voice opinions on this issue.
Beth Keely , 1757 Lawrence, had lived in the neighborhood for over 20 years. She
e.njoyed the close proximity to downtown, pa.rks and the beautiful older homes. She
valued thelo~Tdensity of the neighborhood. Any infill neededto done \vith 'very careful
planning and restrictions that would be compatible with the existing older houses. ,She
supported the proposed amendments that would. prote;ct the.desirable and livable
characte.r o.fthe neighborhood and keep it designated as R-l.
Janice Gotchall, 1461 West Tenth Avenue, supported the proposed amendments. She
said the CityCoun.cil's adopted grovvth. management policies required.newde\lelopment
to maintain the character and livability of neighborhoods. Citillg Goal 6) she asserted the
goal did not sa)', "Increase density regardless of the character and livability of inClividual
neighborhoods".or,"lncrease densit)l at all costs" or "Incre~sing density: trl.lmpS all oth.er
concerns. " . She said redesignation of the JWN fiom low to medium density was an
exan1.pleof the second part of 00a16 having been ignored fora long time. The change
should not havre oc.curred\vithout a parallel effort to define sta.ndards to assure new
devrelopmcl1t \vould maintain the area's character and livabiJit:y. S11e asked that both parts
of Goal 6 be 11onored. She .asked tha.t the Planl1ing Comlnission support the temporary
iedesignation of Area 15 for eighteen months to provide time for de"velopment of
necessary stalldards. Shead-ded that all citizens had tIle right to live in healthy, stable
neighborhoods. The flawed public. invol'lenlent process had allo'vledArea 15 to be
exposed to unlimited R...2 development that allo\\'ed out of sc.ale, inappropriate. structures
. to be built in the heart of a single famil~y neighborhood.
Susan Roe,. 1674 VvTasbington Street, said shenlOvred to tb-c neigllborhood bec,ause slle
was a bike. commuter \vho tra\reled\\lestFifteenth Avellue daily and 'valued the . character
' .'... ........ .. .' ..... .' ." ". ~
of the neighborh_ood. The bike cOmmtlte \vould become less frielldly~ alld tile
neigl1borllood less livable if there "'lere many cars parked and driving on tIle street.
Neight10rs on the street \vere Inaking signific,ant inlprovements to maintain their hOllies
rv1TNlJl1~:S--...-Eu gene Planning Cotnm isslon
Public Hearing
Decenlber 5, 2006
Page 1 0
I-
u..
<C
a:
c
and maintain the neighborhood. She hoped reasonable guidelines would be developed to
increase"density while preserving the neighborhood's characteristics.
David Gossett, 1611 Lincoln Street, said his building, kno\vn as the Peters-Liston...
Wintenneier House was an official City landmark and listed 011 the National Register of
Historic Plac.es. He urged the Plamling Com.mission to retain the R-l zoning in Area 15
,on behalf of his family a~dneighbors. Without appropriate infi1l design standards- R-2
zoning \vould destroy the character of the neighborhood. It wras important to ~aintain the
character, livability and historic fabric of the older, established, pre-World War II
neighborhoods as models of livability and e.nvirolnnentally sound neighborhood.
de\lelopment. The one-of-a-kind houses in the neighborhood were built by skilled
craftsman and served as examples of many architectural styles. He expressed concern
with the replacement of historic homes in the WUN with big box apartments and
inappropriate remodeling.
Susanna Meininger, 1418 Lawrence, Unit A, said her residence was an intill cottage.
She agreed with the comments pre\!iously expressed about WUN, and disagreed JWN
was lTIostly a single faIuily housillg neighborhood. She requested tIlat the record renlain
open for one week.
JozefZdzienicki, 1025 Taylor Street, asked that the record remain open for one week to provide
him an opportunit}t to respond to the written testimony submitted itntnediatelyprior to the,
Planning Commission's \\lork session.
Mr. Yeiter solicited questions from Planning Cot11missioncrs.
, Mr. Belcher, seconded by Mr. McCo\vn, nlo\'cd, based
upon the requests from tvvo nlenlbers .oftllepublic.,. and
twel\le pages of written test~.nlony recel\'ed, to leave the
record. open for one \veek. The motion passed
unaniluously.
MINUTI3S-Eugene" Planning Conunission
Public Hearing
December 5~ 2006
Page 11
t-
a:
o
Mr.Yeiter con.firmed that the record would remain open until. 5:00 p.m., December 12,
2006, for submittal of written and e-mail testimony.
In response to a question raised by~ Mr. Biggs, Ms. Harding stated if the amendlnents
were adopted, the zoning would remain the same as it was currently~noting thatR-l
al::lo\ved some pro'visions for sec.ondar)r d\velling units. Those currently zone R-,2 \VOl.dd
have 'other options.
PlannillgCommission requested additional information on the follo\ving:
. The public notification process used.
. 'The effecti"rellessof the sunset pro\lision.
. Legislati~ve history before deliberation.
. Potential Ballot Measure 37 implications.
Mr. Hledik closed the public hearing.
Mr. Duncan adjourned the Planning Cotnmission meeting at 7:25 p.m.
(Recorded by .Linda Henr)l)
In: \2007\planning and developnlent deparunent\planntng division\planning cOlnmission\pc061205ph,doc
ivrINllTES-~Eugel1e Planning Cornruission
Public Hearing
December 5, 2006
Page 12
1350 Lawrence #1.'
E.ugene, OR 97401
5 Dec,enlber 2006
E.ugene Plamling Commission
99 West lOth Avenue
E.ugene OR 97401
. . . . t-
Re: Jefferson Neighborhood (Area 15) Metro Plan, Amendment, Refinement Plan
Amendment and Code Change (MA 16-5, RA16-3 and CA 16-1
Commissioners
Before you tonight is a package oHhree separate but linked legislative actions a Metro Plan
Amendment, a Refinement Plan Amendment and a revision of part of Chapter 9 of the Eugene
Code. These actions are quite possibly.the worst set of land use amendments I have seen in the
over twelve y~s I have followed Eugene Land Use matters. First, they are contrary to two of
the pertinent Statewide Planning Goals. They are also inconsistent with the Metro Plan and
remaining portions of the Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan. Second because of this lack of
consistencywith.these adopted Goals and Policies they fail to meet any of the applicable
approval criteria. Third they fail to meet all seven of the relevant Growth Management Policies.
TIley will open the. City to the possibility of costly legal actions. Lastly they will not accomplish.
the desired effect of stopping incompatible in-fill. These proposed actions are a complete waste
of the City's and tIle public's time alld limited reSOUfc.es.
From the materials provided by the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) and from personal
experience gained during my ten year tenure as a co-chair of first the Jefferson Area NeighbOrs
and later the JWN I am fully aware that a number of the resident-property owners in Area 15 as
well as the Neighborhood in general are not happy with the manner andfonn ofthe in-fill
projects being developed in Area 15. I am aware that this in-fill development is perceived by
some as damaging the character of the neighborhood. I have first hand knowledge gained in a
challenge to a bad development proposal that the current Site Review Criteria are less then
effective mitigating the negative effects of some of these in-fill development proposals.
The problem with the proposal before you is that it does not directly address the problem through
the development of a set of design standards with teeth to mitigate the negative impacts of in-fill.
Rather it attempts to indirectly address the problem by attempting to back-door a two year
moratorium on in-fill development by dO\vn-zoning Area 15. Which if if was effective might
have been a interesting approach but since it doesn't it is just a waste of our collective time and.
resources. Time and resources that could be much better spent developing a workable set of area
or neighborhood design standards.
The specific problems with the proposed Amendments and Code Change are discussed below in
detail.
IiInkley
'Testimony on f\lIA 06-5, Ra 06-3 and (~~t\ 06..1
5 Decenlber 2006
Page 1 of 12 pages
t .
Refinement Plan Amendment Appro~aI. Criteria
One of the more important aspects of this proposed legislative action is that it is being driven
from bottom up. Normally Land Use Planning is a top down process; we stm with a Statewide
Plaooing Goal and working down through the Metro Plan and Refinement Plan to the Zoning
Code. In the matter before, you this is I)ot the case.
The reason behind this proposal is to respond to what some perceive as inappropriate infill in
Area 15 of the Jefferson Far West Refinement Plan. The goal is to prevent this "inappropriate
infill" by changing the land use code. As this proposed change is not consistent with the existing
Refinement Plan language.a change to the Refinement Plan is necessary. As this revision is not
consistent with the current Metro plan dia~ the Metro plan Diagram needs to be changed. Or
to put it another way, if the code change was possible without a Refmement Plan amendment we
would not be going through the refinement plan amendment process and if the Code Change and
Refinement Plan Amendment was possible without a Metro Plan Amendment we would not be
going through the Metro Plan Amendment Process. This clearly indicates that this is a bottom up
proce,ss*
The fact that this proposal is being driven from the bottom up is significant in evaluating whether
or not the proposal meets the Refinement Plan Amendment criteria contained in EC 9.8424 (2).
The Eugene City Code in 9.8424 states that:
"The'platming cOlnmission shall evaluate proposed refinement plan amendments based
on the criteria set forth below~ and forward a recommendation to the city council." [EC
9.8424]
. Subsection (2)
The Criteria listed ill subsection 2 establishes the circumstances vlllere a, Refinement PlaIl
Amendment is warranted. As failure to meet at least one of the criteria should disqualify a
proposed amendment from consideration I will address them first. This section reads:
(2) The refinement plan amendment addresses one or more of the following:
(a) An error in the publication of tIle refin.ement .plan.
(b) New inventory material \ivhic.b relates to a statewide plannillg ,g~aL
(c) Ne\\T or amended- connnuuity policies.
(d) New or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute,
state regulati.on, statewide planning goal, {)r state agency land use plan.
(e) A change of cirC,U1TIstances in a substantial manner that was not tlnticipated. at the time
the refinenlent plari Vlas adopted. [EC 9.8424(2)J
As the staff findings correctly states tIle IJ[oposed amendment is'n,ot based on a error ill tll.e
Jefferson-Far Vi est Refi.nem.ell.t Plan,nevv illventory fllRterial \V'llich relates to a statewide
planning goal, new or amended provisions in a federal law or regulation, state statute, state
regulation, statewide planning goal, or state agency land. use plan. Nor has there been a change
of circumstances in a substantial manner that was not anticipated at the time the refinement plan
I-iinkley
Testinl011'y on IvtA. 06-5, .Ra. 06-3 and CA, 06-1
5 December 2006
Page 2 of 12 pages
was adopted. Therefore as City staff correctly indicates in the findings EC 9.8424(2) (a), (b), (d)
and (e) do not apply.
This leaves criteria (c). In tbe findings it is indicated tbat the Metro Plan amendment, which is
part of the three part legislative package, constitutes "New or amended community policies" and
thus the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment is consistent with EC 9.8424 and thus is a
permissible lilCtion. This conclusion is in error for a number of reasons. First, the Metro Plan has
not been amended yet, therefore it is not' a New or amended community policy.
Second as stated above tbe Metro Plan is being changed to be consistent with the Refinement
Plan rather then the more normal circumstance where the lower document changed to be
consistent with a high one. While somewhat unorthodox, as long as the finisb product is
consistent from higher to lower state requirements are met. It does however that does mean that
proposed Metro Plan Amendment does not represent a new or amended community policy that
requires a Refinement Plan Amendment, rather it is the Refinement Plan Amendment that
represents a new or amended community policy. One that would require the Metro Plan to be
changed for the final result to meet the Metro Plan Requirement that Refinement Plans be
c.onsistent with the Metro Plan.
As the Refinement Plan Amendment is a new community policy rather then "addressing" a new
community policy imposed from above, criteria (c) also does not apply. As none of the Criteria
in EC 9.8424 are met by the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment, that Amendment does not
meet the criteria contained in EC 9.8424 and should be rejected.
Subsection (1)
Subsection (l) ofEC 9.8424 requires that a proposed refmement plan amendment be consistent
with The Statewide Planning Goals and applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and remaining
portions of the .refineUlel1t plan.
The proposed refmement plan is not consistent 'With State Wide Planning Goals 10 and 12, Nor is
it consistent witllMetro PIa.n ~olic)l A 13 .
Goal 10 Housing
As it is correctly pointed out in the Findings, Go all 0- Housing requires that communities plan
for and maintain an inventory of buildable residential land for needed housing units. This is
commonly referred to as the "twenty year land supply" as the Administrative Rules establishing
the requirement for the inventory requires that the completed inventory show that at the time the
inventory is accepted there is a 20 year supply of residential land within the Urban Grovvth
Boundary. Equally correct is the assessment that by changing the designation of 57 acres of
buildable residential land from Medium Density to Low Density will impact the residential land
inventory by reducing the number of dwelling units that could be built in the area.
At this point the findings contain the unsupported assumption that the next Residential Land
Inventory Process will use the same methodology that the last one used. As a new Residential
Land Inventory has not been started and is not there a mandated methodology in statute or
ordinance that must be used in the next Residential Land Inventory any inventory methodology
I:1: ink ley
Testiulony on 1\1A 06-5, Ra 06-3 and (:1'\ 06-1
5 fJecell1ber 2006
Page 3 of 12 pages
is speculative at best and clearly is not something that used to demonstrate compliance with a
Statewide Planning Goal. Thus while the calculations contained in the fmdings are interesting,
because they are based on unsupported speculation they do not provide any meaningful
indication of compliance with the Goal 1 0 requirement.
Further as Eugene's Growth Management Policies, v,'ith their clear preference for infill over
UGB expansion, were adopted after the .Inventor:y methodology.used in the 1999 Residential
Land Inventory was established it can be argued that the methodology used in the next inventory
will be different from that used in the last in'lentory particularly in regards to in-fill.
The City of Eugene does not currently track: changes to the residential land inventory. Because it
does not trackthe impact of park: development, natural resource and watershed protections, other
zone changes, the actual density of new development and other similar activities on the
residential land supply it is not possible to assess the full impact that the proposed density
reduction would have on the buildable residential land supply. Specifically, itis not possible to
detenrtine if this change would result in Eugene and the Metro Area having an inadequate
residential land supply. This proposal could be the pro\rerbial straw that broke the camels back or
not. We do not know because of a decision on tIle part of the CIty of Eugene not to track this
matter.
Thus in the final analysis we only actually knO\V that this proposal will reduce the number of
d\,\reIling units that could be constructed ill the area. That information in and of itself does not
show t~at the proposed Refinement plan a.mendment is in complianc.e with Goal 10. If an~ything
it indicates a likelihood.that the proposal is not incompliance with Goal 10.
Goal 12 T'ransportation
Division 12 ofOregol1 Administrati\reRules Chapter 660 implements State Wide Planning Goal
12 (Transportation). One of the purposes for this part of the OARs is to direct tral1sportation
plallliing in coordinatioll with land use plalming to ensure that changes to comprehensive plans
are supported by adequate planned transportation facilities.[OAR 660-12-0000 (l)(i)] OAR 660-
12-0060 contains a re-quirement that \;vhen a la.nd use change signific,antly effects the
transportation system that local governm,ent is to put in safeguards to insure that the land use is
consistent with the function, capacity alId perfonnance of the s~ystenl. The exact language of tlns
rule is:
(1) Where an amendnlent to a functional plan, an ackno'Vvledged c,omprehenslve plan, or
a land use regulatioll ~rould. significantly affect an existing or .planneed transportation
facility, tIle, local go\,rernment shall put in place measures as provided in section (2). of this
rule to assure that allowed.land uses are consistent ,vith.the identified function~ capacity,
and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to c-apacity ratio, etc.) of the,
facilit)l. A plan orlan,d use regulatioll amel1dment signjfi.carrtlyT affects a transportation
facility if it w~ould:
(a) Change the fullctionaJ classificatiol1 of an existing or planned transportation facilit)7
(exclusi\re of correction of map errors in all adopted plan);
Hinkley
'restinlony on rvlA 06-5~ Ra 06-3 andCA 06-1
5 Deceluber 2006
Page 4 of 12 pages
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation
system plan: '
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in types or levels of travel
or access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation. facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned tranSportation facility below the
minimutn acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan;
or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perfonn below the mininlutn acceptable performance standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan. [OAR 660-12-0060 (1)]
The proposed Refinement Plan Amendment is a change of the level of development of Area 15.
The pertinent question is whether or not this change significantly affects a transportation facility.
A Transportation Facility is defmed in the statute as being "any physical facility that moves or
assist in the movement of people or goods..." [OAR 660-1 2-0020 (3 O)l Locally two
governmental organizations operate a transportation facility in this part of Eugene, the City of
Eugene and Lane Transit District.
The findings do not include any assessment on the part of Lane Transit District as to the inlpact
. of this Refinement Plan Amendment on their transportation facility... As a result these findings are
incomplete and do not support a conclusion that the proposed amendment is in compliance with
Goal 12.
And while the findings do contain an assessment by Eugene Public Works Department that
assessment is fatally flawed. Public Works staff was incorrect in their detemUnation that the
proposed down zoning would not have an impact on Eugene's transportation system.
particularly erroneous is their conclusion that by down zoning Area 15 the impact on the
transportation system would be reduced. The flaw in their reasoning is in not recognizing the fact
that by limiting development in Area 15 the City is displacing that development to other parts of
Eugene and the Metro Area. It is clear that growth creates a demand for housing, a demand that
the housing market responds to by.building more housing. Where that new development will
occur we do not know ,only that it will happen and the residents of these new housing units will
use the transportation system. Thus it is not possible to accurately detenninewhat impact this
change will have on compliance with the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule.
However, an extremely rough estimation can be made. Area 15 is located near the center ofthe
City, given land prices and currept developnlent patterns 'it is very likely that the displaced units
will be developed further from the city center then Area 15, making it more likely that their
reliance on the automobile will be greater then that of Area 15. Beyond that we do not know.
Like Goal 1 0, because of a lack of data it is not possible to show compliance with TPR and as a
llinkley
Testimony on MA 06-5, Ra 06-3 and CA 06-1
.5 Dec,enlber 2006
Page 5 of 12 pages
result Goal 12. And as showing compliance with Statewide Planning Goals is a required criterion
the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment does not meet the Refmement Plan Amendment
Approval Criteria,' it should be rejected. '
Metro Plan Policy A13
This policy reads as follo\\'s:
A. 13 Increase overall residential density in the metropolitan area by creating more
opportunities for effectively designed in-fill, redevelopment, and mixed use while
comidering impacts of increased residential density on historic, existing and future
neighborhoods.'
The proposed Refinement Plan Amendment by calling for a reduction of the overall demity
permitted in Area 15 is directly contrary to this policy. Rather then increasing OPPOrtunities for
in- fill it reduces them. Granted the idea behind this amendment is to address inappropriate in-fill
and it could be argued inappropriate in-fill is not the "effectively designed infill" but the solution
for this problem is design standards not a prohibition on in-filL
What is being proposed is analogous to reducing train noise by blowing up the railroad tracks. It
works, no tracks means no trains, which means no noise,but it is overkill. We loose the benefits
of the train as well as the noise. So is the case,withthe proposed Refinement Plan Amendment,
as a method of controlling "inappropriate infill" this amendment effectively eliminates in-fIll.
Current policies in the Metro Plan, the Jefferson-Far West Plan, and the Growth Management
Policies clearly indicate that in-fIll is considered desirable. Given the importance in-fill holds in
these policy documents elimination of in-fill is not an acceptable way to address inappropriate
in- fill.
As the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment restricts in-fill opportunities it is directly contrary
to Metro Plan Policy A.13 as a result it cannot be considered in compliance with the Metro Plan
and as a result it fails to meet criteria contained in EC 9.8424(1) and as a result should be
rejected.
15. LOl\t-Medium Density Area
The policy statement associated with Area 15 reads as follows
This area shall be recognized as a low- to medium-density
residential area. The City shall explore methods of encouraging an increase in
residential density yet maintaining the character of the area. Residential
densities beyond ten units per acre shall be allowed, subject to an approved
block plall or rezolling to R-2 in conjullction.with site reviev\l.
The City shall encourage block planning, infilling, and shared housing, in this area.
Access to housing units off of alleys shall be accommodated when not in conflict with
other policies and goals.
Hinkley
Testimony on iv1A 06-5, Ra 06-3 and CA 06-1
5 Decell1ber 2006
Pa.ge 6 of 12 pages
The City shall encourage the rehabilitation of the existing housing stock through both
public and private reinvestments. [Jefferson-Far West Refinement Plan, page 27 and 28]
The proposed Refinement Plan Amendment only changes the first and third sentences. EC
9.8424 (I) requires that a Refmement Plan Amendment be consistent with the remaining portion
of the Refinement Plan.
The sentence which reads "The City shall explore methods of encouraging an increase in
residential density yet maintaining the character of the area" remains. The proposed
Amendment by reducing the allowable density is discouraging an increase in residential density
and as such is contrary to the intent ofthe policy. Granted the idea behind this amendment is to
address inappropriate in~fill and it could be argued inappropriate in-fill does not maintain the
character of the area, is not the but the solution for this problem are design standards not a
prohibition on in~fin through the reduction of density.
As the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment by discouraging rather the encouraging in-fill is
not consistent with the remaining portions of the Refinement Plan as a result it fails to meet
criteria contained in EC 9.8424(1) and as a result should be rejected.
As the proposed Refinement Plan Amendment fails to meet any of the Refinement Plan
Amendment Approval Criteria contained in EC 9.8424 I recommend that the Planning
Commission in its submission to the City Council not recommend the approval of the proposed
Refinement Plan Amendment and instead recommend that the matter of inappropriate in-fill be
addressed through thedevelopnlentof d.e~ign standards.
Metro Plan Approval Criteria
The Eugene Code in EC 9. 7730(3) contains the following criteria to be applied by the City
Council in thealJproval of a Metro Plall amel1.dlnent:
(3) Criteria for Appro\l"alofPlan Amendment
The following criteria shall be applied by the city council in approving ori.lenying a
Metro.Plan amendment application:
(a) The amendment must be COI1Sl.stellt \vith the relev"ant State".vide
Planning Goals adopted by the Land Conservation and Development
Commission; and
(b) Adoption of the amendment must not make the Metro Plan internally
inconsistent. [EC9.7730(3)]
For the reasons given above in the discussion of the Refinement Plan Amendment's consistency
with the relevant state wide planning goals, incorporated here by reference, the proposed Metro
Plan amendment fails to satisfy the criteria in BC 9.7730(3)(a).
\
"
Similarly, for the reasons presented above in the discussion of the Refinement Plan
Amendment's compliance with the Metro Plan, incorporated here by reference, the proposed
Metro plan amendment is not consistent with Policy A. 13 and thus is Makes the Metro Plan
Hinkley
l~estimony on:rvlA. 06...5, f(a 06-3 and (~A 06-1
5 Decelnber 2006
Page 7 of 12 pages
intemallyinconsistent and as a result the proposed Metro Plan amendment fails to satisfy the
criteria in EC9.7730(3)(b).
As the proposed Metro Plan Amendment fails to meet any of the Metro Plan Amendment
Approval Criteria contaIned in EC 9.7730(3) I recommend that the Planning Commission in its
submission to the City Council not recommend the approval of the proposed Refinement Plan
Amendment and instead recommend that the matter of inappropriate in-fill be addressed through
the development of design standards.
Growth Mana.cnnelltPolicies
Applicability of the Growth ManagemeutPoHeies
On 2 February 1998 The Eugene City Council adopted Resolution No 4554 adopting a set of
Growth Management Policies. Section 2 of tllat Resolution reads as follows:
The policies adopted by Section 1 shall be used by the City to Guide the work of the City
Manager and staff in formulating for Council consideration proposed changes to the
Eugene Code, 1971, including changes to Chapters 2 through 9. The policies.adopted by
Section one also shall be used by the City to guide other work programs, including such
actions as preparation of the budget and revisions to the capital improvement program.
(Resolution 4554,' Section 2]
As the Eugene Land Use Code is chapter 9 of the Eugene Code, 1971, any change to the Land
Use Code is a change to the Eugene Code and thus is subject to the Growth Management
Policies adopted by the City Council as Reso lutio 11 4554.
Compliance with G'rowth Management Policies
The proposed package of legislation is contrary to all 7 of the 19 adopted Growth Management
Policies 7 that directly pertain to it. These are Policies 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. The specific
policies and why- the proposed legislatioll is contrary to thenlare.disc.ussed belo\v. But before I
address them there are some general observations about growth that apply to most of theIll; that
in the interest of space I ,\iII.address here.
R.edu.ced to its most basic form tIle gro\'viIl equation is'"ery simple~ \\Then ever births and
immigration exceeds deaths and emigration there is gro\\;th.Currentl.y there is no la,,,rful means
by \vhich a local government can control aII)l of the four vari.ables in th.eequati.on. Which means
government can not cOlltrol growth it can. only influence 110"V th.e comlIlunity wIn accommodate
it. The true question C.o11c,eminggro\vth is l10t "ho\'v much gro\vth?~' bllt ratller "where is thisne\v
population going to live, \vorkand dri\re?'~
This proposed legislation by reducing the overall density of Area 15 is displacing growth and
any negative impacts it may have to other parts of the community. These areas win have to pick
up the slack that this down zoning will create. This means that the impacts of this proposed down
zoning extend beyond the boundaries of Are a 16 and the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood.
Hinkley
Testiolony on i\4A 06-5~ Ita 06...3 andCA 06-1
5 December 2006
Page 8 of 12 pages
When evaluating the various criteria this displaced impact on other parts of the city and the
Metro Are.a need also to be considered.
Policy 1 Support the existing Eugene Urban Growth Boundary by taking llCtiom to increase
density and use vacant and under used land within the boundary more effICiently.
These amendments and code changes clearly intend to reduce density in Area 15. That action is
directly in conflict with the concept of "taking action to increase density" contained in the above
. policy.. Additionally, Area 15 contains several vacant or undeveloped lots, reducing the
permitted density does not represent an efficient use of land within the DGB. For these reasons,
the proposed legislative package is not consistent with this policy.
Policy 2 Encourage in1il1, mixed use, redevelopment, and higher density development.
By reducing density these proposed amendments and code changes direct discourage in-fiU and
prohibit higher density development. For these reasons, the proposed legislative package is not
c.onsistent ,vitIl this policy.
Policy 5 Work cooperatively with Metro Area partners (Springfield and LtlIte Coul11J1) and
other near bJ' cities to avoid urban sprawl an.d preserve tlte rural character in areas out side
the urball growth boulldaries.
Failing to support the existing UGB as discussed above does not represent working cooperatively
with our Metro Partners to avoid urban sprawL For these reasons, the proposed legislative
package is not consistent "rith.this poliCjr.
PoliC)T b Increase the del.sity of new hOllSilZg development lv/tile maintaining the character
Qlrd livability of individual neighbor/roods.
1''llese amelldments anti code changes clearljl intend to reduce density of ne\v de'velopment in
Area 15. Granted th.e idea behind this arnendnlent is to ad.d.ress inappropriate in-fi 1. 1 and it could
be argued inappropriate in-fill does not maintain the character and livability of the neighborhood,
but the solution for this problem are design standards not a prohibition on in-fiU through the .
red.uction of densit)l. For tllis reasons, the. pro11osed legislative package is not consistent ",itl} this
polic)'.
Policy 7 Provide for a greater variety of housi"g types.
1..10\"" density resid.ential penl1its the most limited variety of housing types of any zoning
designation. It effecti'vel:y limits de'velopment to single family d.\;vellings loc,atedone to the lot
,vith in rare cirCUlnstallces an occasional duplex. lJnder the current Refinell1ent Plan language
and density designation development of duplexes, four-plexes and small apartment buildings
Illfljl be pemlitted. Rather the providing f()r a gre<.lter varietyofliousillg tyl'pes, the proposed
changes contained in the legislative package will clearly reduce the variety of housing types in
the area, this is directly COlltrar)l to this policy.
Hinkley
l~estimony on l'vlA 06-5, R.a 06-3 and CA. 06-1
5 DecelD.ber 2006
Page 9 of 12 pages
Policy 8 Promate the canstrllctWn af affardable hausing.
There are two types of affordable housing, reasonably priced homes offered for purchase and
affordable rental housing. The latter is most commonly found in the fonn of apartments in small
apartment b~ldings, duplexes and four-plexes. By limiting the density this type of development
is clearly not being promoted which in turn means that affordable rental housing is not being
promoted. This basically limits new development to single-family dwellings aimed at the owner-
occupier market. Generally speaking, new detached single-family dwelling units are not .
purchased for the purpose of renting out. The existing housing market is where investors tend to
go to find houses to rent out. The lots in Area 15 are generally larger then the lots found in new
tievelopment, because of their clo~ proximity to downtown they tend to co1l'ln1and a higher
value then lots of similar size on the outskirts of town. In Oregon, generally speaking, what is
built on large expensive lots is large expensive housing, which is by its very nature is not
affordable. By decreasing density, these proposed amendment and code changes make the
development of the only type of affordable housing that can be built, small rental apartments
difficult to impossible. This is not promoting affordable housing and thus is directly contrary to
this policy.
Policy 11 Encallrage the creation af transportaJi,an-elficient land use patterns and
implementation af Nadal devewpmentconcepts.
The most transportation-efficient land use pattern for a city is to have a dense core and ever
decreasing density as you move away from this core. Currently Eugene is developing in exactly
the opposite manner. It is denser at the edges where the bulk of newdevelopment is going on
small lots, while the core inter-city neighborhoods are less dense because of their relatively large
lot size and lower density development. Overtime market forces if given a relatively free rein
would correct this situation through the development of small apartment buildings and four-
plexes. By reducing the allowable density in Area 15 as these amendments and code changes
propose to do, this densification will never happen. The result of this will be to make this
hollow-core development pattern pennanent a result clearly contrary to this policy.
Another transportation-efficient land use pattern is to have the housing located on arterials and
major collectors developed to a higher density then local streets. One of the m~or benefits of this
is that this increases the number of people living along the Bus and transit lines tbat tend run on
arterials mdmajor collectors. Increasing the number of potential riders and encouraging transit
use. By imposing the same density standard on parcels fronting on 13th and 18th Avenues, and
Jefferson and Olive street, the arterial and collectors located within the boundaries of Area 15,
as are imposed on the interior local streets this transportation development pattern can never
de'velop
One of the few functioning nodes in Eugene is the area centered on 13th Avenue and Lawrence
Street. While the center of this nodal area is not within the boundaries of Area 15, it is directly
adjacent to the area and as the population of this node increases it has caused the development of
higher density residential development across the ally and over the Amazon into Area 15. This
represents the natural expansion of the node and not an undesirable development activity. By
f-linkley
rrestirnony on MA 06-5, Ra06-3 and C~A 06-1
5 Decellloer 2006
Page 1 () of 12 pages
lowering the density of Area 15 this nonnalexpansion of a node is being stifled which is clearly
no ~ay to implement nodal development.
.For the reasons givenahove the proposedplan amendments clearly do not encourage
transportation-efficient land use patterns as a result the proposed plan amendments and code
changes'are contrary to this policy. ..
There is one other Growth Management policy that pertains to housing, it is Policy 9. This policy
reads as follows:
Mitigate the impacts of new and/or higher density housing, in-fill and redevelopment on
neighborhoods through design standards, open space. and housing maintenance programs'
and continuing historic preservation and neighborhood planning programs; [Resolution
4554, section (1), policy 9]
It is interesting to note that while this policy directly address the basic motivation behind the
proposed plan amendments and code changes it does not apply to them. For rather then following
this policy and developing design standards mitigate the negative impacts of higher densities and
in-fiU the proposed plan amendments and code changes attempt to stop the development of in-fill
good and bad.
It is clear from the fmdings.as well as the comments above that the City Manager and his staff
did not follow the policy guidance provided by the City Council in Resolution 4554, specifically,
that the adopted growth management policies be used as a guide in. fonnulating changes to the
Eugene Code, 1977 of which the Land Use Code is part. As a result of this failure, the Proposed
Metro and Refinement Plan amendments are not consistent with either the letter or spirit of the
City's Adopted Growth Management Policies. For this reason I recommend thatthe Planning
Commission in its submission to the City Council not recommend the approval of the proposed
Plan Amendments and Code Change and instead recommend to the council that the entire
package be sent back to staff for a rewrite that is consistent with the adopted policies of the City
of Eugene as required bit resolution 4554.
Sunset Clause
At first glance the sunset clause looks like a good idea, it means that unless a future council takes
action to extend it the proposed changes are temporary. The problem is thanks to Measure 37
these changes will expire before they actually apply to existing property owners. The City
currently has no money budgeted to fight Measure 37 claims,and there is no indication that it
will have it budgeted in the next fiscal year either. This means that the City will likely wave the
land use limitations on development, like this dO\\'l1-zoning proposal, rather then. pay the lost
value. This means as a practical matter the proposed density reduction will only apply to new
mvners. And given the tactic of using irrevocable option to purchase as a way for a new property
owner with the cooperation of the existing property owner to develop the property to an older
standard it is not clear that it \vould appl:y to them either.
At best the Sunset Clause is a meaning less feature of a legislative proposal that is not likely to
have th~ intended effect. At worst it provides cover for the adoption of a legislative package that
Hinkley
l'estirnony on T'v1A06...5} Ra 06...3 and (~).I\ 06-1
5 December 2006
Page 11 of 12 pages
is more likely to cause problems through Measure 3 7 claims then it is to prevent inappropriate
in-fill. .
. Measure 37
While we are on the' subject of Measure 37, it is illteresting to note that it.should be extremely
difficult to .prove that design standards reduced the. value of a piece .of property opening the. way
for a Measure 37 claim. Tbis is because. a 'properly developed set of design standards do not
reduc~the ability ofa property own to develop his property but rather affect the form of that
development. This only applies to design standards, attempts to control in-fill through
development standards are likely to run a foul of Measure 37.
.
In Conclusion
There are enough Land. Use proposals on the public's plate at this time to '\Taste your and the
public's time on a proposal that will expire before. it is effective and \\lhichonly serves to open
the city to more costly Measure 37 claims. As the proposed Metro -Plan amendment, Jeffe.rson...
West Refinement Plan amendment do not for, tIle reasons discussedabove~ meet their respective
adoption criteria as establish.ed in EC 9.7730(3) and Ee9 .8424 respectivel)' and the amendments
and code change are contrary to all of the applicable Gro\vth Management Policies, 1 .most
strongly urge the Eugene Planning Commission not to recommend. adoption but rather
recommend that the City Council drop the matter and directCit)T Staff to develop a setaof
design standards to mitigate. the impacts of in-fill.
Thank you for 'your time and careful consideration of this matter.
Hinkley
TestinIony on JY1/\ 06-5,Ra 06M03 and CA~. 06-1
5 Decetnber 2006
Page- 12 of 12 pages
November 28, 2006
Ms Terri Harding- Senior Planner
Eugene Planning Division
.City of Eugen.e
Subject:
Metro Plan Amendment for Jefferson Westside Area 15
File No. MA 06-05
Planning Commission:
The following comments are submitted in support of maintaining R-tzoning for Area 15.
I have lived in this general area of Eugene for 28 years, and the past 17 years at my
current address within Area 15. I moved to this neighborhood because of its proximity to
downtown, convenience to schools, and stable family oriented setting. Many houses,
including mine, date back over 80 years and give the area the feeling of a mature stable
neighborhood where the residents take pride in their property~ This neighborhood
currently presents a mix of housing including "granny flats" and multi unit housing.
In recent years I have been disturbed with the poor quality design of multi-family infill.in
nearby R-2 zoned. areas. Many new dwellings do not fit with the character of the
neighborhood. However, some infiU development does fit nicely. For example, the older
row houses at 17th and Olive and recent row houses on Jefferson near Amazon slough.
Therefore, I encourage that rezoning lots to R-2 should be put on hold until appropriate
development standards can be prepared~. Lastly, I suggest the Planning Depa.rtment to
do a better Job of involving the public in zoning change planning which effects both
quality of life and property values.
Jefferson Westside Neighbors
A City-Chartered Neighborhood Association
wwwJwneugene.org
November 27,2006
ftI!Ill<.'" ~tt ~, ~~.~ut:'
C~~ ~ w ~'jr t ~;:~t:l't:
. BUftOtNG t)fRMi1 SERVtCES
Eugene Planning Commission
99 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97 40 I
~JOV 2 7 2005
RECEIVED
RE: Proposed Metro Plan, JeffersonlFar West Refinement Plan, and Eugene Code
amendments (files MA 06-5,RA 06-3, and CA 06-1)
Dear Commissioners:
The Jefferson Westside Neigbbors (JWN) urges the Planning Commission to recommend
approval of the proposed Metro Plan, JeffersonlFar WestRefmement Plan, and Eugene
Code amendments that are the subject of the December 5, 2006 Public Hearing.
These amendments were initiated by City Council's September 11, 2006 motion in order
"to limit the subject area to Low Density residential development."
Council initiated these amendments after receiving Planning staff and JWN
recommendations that resulted from the following motion that Council adopted (6-1) on
July 24, 2006:
To schedule a work session for August 16 to consider {that] Jeffirson-
T1iestside is. currentl}' threatened by inappro]Jriate infill, and l~}hat call11Je do
in the short term to pause and mitigate this negative effect. As part of the
preparation for this l1Jork session, staff If/ill l1;ork l1,Jith Jeffirson JJ1estside
Neighbors to consider approaches to their situation l1lith R-l to .R-2
up-zonings.
Council has made clear their intent that relevant plans and code be amended to "pause
and mitigate" the negative effect of inappropriate infill that threatens the subject area,
specifically~ to pause tIle threat ofincom.patible infill that \\Tould result from R-l to R-2
upzonings in this area. The proposed ame.ndments will. fulfill Council's directive.
At our general meeting on September 12, the JWN voted unanimously (34-0) to endorse
Council's action (see attached resolution). Specifically, the JWN requested the Metro
Plan, JeffersonlFarWest Refinement Plan, and Land Use Code be changed to designate
the subject are-a as Hl~o\v Dellsity Residential."
This vote is consistent with the JWN membership's unanimous vote (48-0) on March 14,
2006 requesting a temporary moratorium on zone changes for lots within the subject area
(see att.ached resolution).
These repeated, unanimous votes should leave no question that the neighborhood
association o'venvhelmingl~y supports the proposed amendments.
Eugene Planning Commission
November 27, 2006
Page Two
In addition, large numbers of residents of the subject area, other areas of the JWN, and.
neighborhoods outside the JWN have stated their support for the proposed amendments
and their intent.
Over 135 residents of Area 15 signed the attaehed petition requesting City Council
amend the Metro Plan, the JeffersonlFar West ReJinement Plan, and th.e Land Use Code
to limit Area 15 to low density residential development.
Earlier this year, a petition signed b)r 286 Eugen.e residents (also attached) was presented
to Council urging Council to take action to prevent up-zoningsuntil standards to protect
the neighborhood's character are adopted. (Approximately one-third of the people who
signed this petition live in Area 15, approximately one third live in other areas of the
JWN, and approximately one third live outside the JWN.)
Collectively, these actions show broad support among families '\Tho live in the area and
who will be most affected by these amen.drnents.
We believe the proposed amendments are consistent \\lith all respective appro'V'al criteria.
We note specifically that the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plall amendments address
the.following t\vo items in approval criteria EC 9..8424(2):
(c) Ne11J or amended community policies.
Council's September 11 motion explicitl)' directs the policy for this area be amen.ded.
(e) A change in circurnstances in a Sllbstantial manrler that 11las not anticipated at the
tin1e the refinementlJlanwas adopted.
The density and scale of developnlent allowed by the R...2 zone has changed
substantially since, the plan \\lasadopted in 1983.. Most notabl)r, the average number
of dwelling units allowed on pare,eIs in the subject area has approximately tripled
since that time. There is no evidence this substantial change 'ivas anticipated at the
time the refinenlent plan was adopted.
In addition~ the November 15,2006 code interpretation of the Jefferson/Far \\"est
R.efinement Plan policy covering the subject area (tIle CI 06-13) h;as voided any limit
on density allo\ved by "medium density" (i.e., R-2) standards - a staff action that was
neither intended. nor anticipate;dby the policy~s explicit "10\'/- to med.iu.m.-densit)r"
designation of the area.
Further, this same code interpretation void,ed al1Y application of the policy's
requirement for block plans or site re\rie\\lS to assure that up-z()nings and subseqllent
de'velopment maintain th.e character of the are,a, as tIle plan clearl)l intends. This staff
action \vas like,~vise neither intended nor anticipated by the policy.
Eugene Planning Commission
November 27,2006
Page Three
We've attached additional testimony to provide further background infonnation on the
subject area, the refinement plan, and other relevallt factors.
We also want to emph.asize that Council's September 11 moti.oll was intended as a
temporary measure, using the mechanism reconlmended by Planning staff (i.e., plan and
code amendtnents), to maintain the ~~'<tatus quo ante in this.area until appropriate
development standards could be imple.mented or until the "sunset" date of Jul)T 1, 2008.
The JWN' sSeptember 12 motion supports Council's intent in this regard.
The JWN and area residents remain committed to sensible compact development that
maintains the stability and character of our neighborhoods, and we look forward to
working with the ne\v Planning staff member responsible for the "Intill Compatibility
Standards" and {'Opportunity Siting" programs.
Thank you for your c.onsideration.
Please contact ei.th.er of us if "re call be of assistance.
Respectfully,
~C;/!.~.
Rene Kane, Co-ChaIr
254 W. 14th Ave.
rkane@higllstream.net 343-4309
~~e;12o_ttl
1461 'fl. 10th Ave.
pconte@picante-soft.com 344-2552
Attachments
· JWN resolutions (see reverse side)
· Petitic}n requesting appro'val of proposed a.mendnlcnts
· July 5 petition requestillg temlJOrary ,proh.ibitioll against R.-2 Up-zollings
-Area 15 background infornlatioll
· Jefferson/Far West Refinem.ellt.Plan
· Jefferson/Far \'yTest. Refinetnent Plal1 Appendix
Jefferson Westside Neighbors' Resolutions
On September 12, 2006, the Jefferson Westsid.e Neighbors in general meeting
unanimously (34~O) resolved:
The Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) requests City Council amend the Metro Plan,
the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan, and the Land Use Code to limit su.barea 15 in
the plan (either in its entiretyT or the portion south of Amazon C.anal) to Low Density
Residential d.evelopment. Further, the JWN supports a provision that unless Council takes
further action with regard to the subject area, the subject area shall revert to allow Low-
to Medium-Density Residential development on Jul:y 1, 2008.
The J\\'N co-chairs are directed to take appropriate action to communicate this req.uest to
Cit~y staff and officials and to work for its prompt implementation.
On March 14, 2006, the Jefferson Westside N'eighbors in general meeting
unanimously (48-0) resolved:
Jefferson \Vestside Neighbors requests City Council adopt a te.m.porary moratorium on
zone cllanges forlots \vithin the are,a encompassed by the Jefferson/Far West Refinement
Plan that was redesignated in 2004 from "Lo\v-Density Residentiar' to "Medium-Density
Residentiar~ on the Metro Plan Diagram. This area is approxitnately as shown in the map
associated with "Jefferson residential area #15~' (in the first column on page 28) of the
Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan..
The moratorium should remain ineffe:ct Ulltil Council adopts appro.priate development
standards to protect this area's 11ei.ghborhood.character~ as stated in the refillement pla.n~s
policy for tllis area.
PETITION
to
EUG-ENE CITY COUNCIL
Copy Submitted to Planning Commission_
November 27, 2006
"V../e requ.est City' Council amend the Metro Plan, tIle Jefferson!
Far West Refinement Plall, and the Land Use Code to lilnit
Area 15 in the plan to Low Density Residential development."
Signed by 160 Eugene Citize11S
137 Residellts of Jefferson "Area 15"
(J"1
~
o
=
==
~
~
~
z
~
.~
.~
UJ.
Fn
~
~
z
o
r.t'l
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q)
""0
o
()
CD
(/J
::>
-0
c
<<S
....J
Q.)
.t::.
........,
"C
c:
CO
c:
m
CL
......,
c
<1>
E
<1>
c:
t+=
(1)
a:::
~
en
~~
... c:
as (J)
u..E
"a..
1:: 0
0_
~ ~
~.Q)
QJ"O
"'""')co
(1)+:i
..c:C
+-'Q)
"-0
c:--
m (/)
-Q)
0..'0::
e~
........, .-
(1) (/)
~53
<1>Cl
;:;~
*00
C::..J
~.9
m c:
-m
.0 0.
c: <D
:;:j..c
0....,
()c:
~..-
:t: 1..0
U~
..... CO
,~~
::1<(
CT.......,
CO--
t...... E
(1):'::
$.9
l()
...-l
<<S
~
a.
-<
rIJ'
rn
~
-
."
"=
-<
-Y'
<L)
is
<<S
Z
....
=
....
-
~
;"
''\J
~
~
~
~
"',j
'N
~
~,
~
~
~
a-
S
cs
~;
.,. I
00;
>\
"X
;x
-1
tr)
'~
if)
.~)
\f)
\f)
,<;;:
}~
'-~. fl
I 1'-" ~
:. C
J 1
:\ ~
"~ ..-.?
~ EA
~ :T
'"
~
-~
{?)
~
~
~
~
.~
~
~
~
3
--.J
'S
\~
V\
'-(
"-....
t1
~
~
'~
:ss
t12
L
<)
(2J
>\
~
\f"
~
\-
J\f"
,i
~
t_
~
~
'3 3
-----
C-- r
rf) rf\
~
C.-J
L
:S
E
A,
W
\5
(J
\.::
--,~ r )
~
?
~
/'''.'\
q
'J .~
\1 ~.~ ~
'::=-0 ~.. ...~ ....... ~
,W
~ ,~ .....)
, ,~~~ '~ ,~ ~
'.............. !.^'
~ '\?\ ~ x:
f'x~ r'J .~
------- .-..:.-
--- .....-
-........................ ~
~
......
~
~
~ '_n___~
''llto",J r-'
~~~ _ "C.)
1'11) - '\n · .~
~.. ._-,---~~~'-- ~'=~ -~
~ n, ',~,= .::..... .:::-
. --
~
~
~
('
(;I>
~.
()
..........
~
.~ 0
~~
TO
~
--g
~
~..~
~=--~ ~
~z
. ~ 1:1
~ .C
\.j~
/,--
~-::-._.
~
~
.a
ro
~.
V5
rJ7l
~~
} (1)
M
'(1)
~
~
o
rJ:1
.~
o
=
=
~.
~
~
z
,~
~
~
VJ
~
rJ:J
~
~
z
o
r:J'l
~
.~
~
~
~
l-J
'cu
'\j
o
()
Q)
(f)
=>
'"0
C
(G
....J
Q)
.s:::::.
.........
'"0
c:
cu
c:
m
a:
+oJ
c:
Q)
E
Q.)
c:
.t;::
(1)
0::
........,
en
~+'
s..... c:
coQ)
u.E
..........c...
Co
0_
~~
~()}
(1)-0
-:>(0
(f)+:;
..c:C
""(1)
... .-0
c.-
m(/}
-(1)
a...~
e~
..., .-
Q.) (IJ
~ .~
<DC)
€3=
-00
C:.......J
(1) 0 '
E""
n1 C
-<0
.0Q.
t: Q)
:.'S.I::,
0...-
{)c
~.-
:t: t.O
() ~
......,ro
(/') (1)
.(1) LM.
~<(
0-......,
<1).-
t-E
(1):'=
~B
tf)
~
<<t ~ ""
e ~~
-<
'k~
'}- > :J-
· C)
'>--. ~ -
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .........,
~ ~
l71 tr; \A 'f ~ ~ <C <t \~"
t7}
<U ~ \'
... ~ r, 1. s: ~ ~
"= .-4- ~
"C ~ ~ ~ .~ ~
< ~ LD lI) ~ '\S"l ~
~ -- ~ "",," ---- ~
"" ~ "- h
l ::t: \}
~ ~ ..~
~ t.S' -:; ? .-,
3; .~ -;> ~ :3
~
~ ~ ~ ~ \f\J
~ t~ ~ .~--'\
'- ~ \-J)
(j-- \J) ~ ~
~ ::::r IV) tr\ ~ \J\ U\ \~ ::t
............ --...
~
e
~
z
....
==
.-
'-
~
i l
!~
00 \J
i
~
~
~
~ ~
~I. . \.n.'
L~
V)
j
~
~
l;J
~
i\)
~
r)
.....-----~
'-f\
~
~\
~
~ ~"\
~ ~u
~ b
':::t \.~
~f
~---
:~ ~
~ \
.:"'" "-J
vJ "" .--
~>
\V'
\
S--~
\ \;J
'.,. ...::J -.......... -
'~ ~ ~
~ ~ C0 ~
~ -\-- ) :-1\
, . ~ ~ \~\
~ ~ ~.~
-.s:::;
~
3;
------
~
. .! """"
~
-
* ~~
<J:'
~
V)
~
<'~
,.--
":5 -
-l
p
~ ~
~ ~:O
,6 i '.
<~ ~ I :!
~ I '~'Oli
\f) I ~ . fro
~~. ~':
~ _XJ
~ iJ '~).....'......
'\J.~ \,l "" ..--...
\ V ) ~<::~
<""''''~ ~'< \ ..~
~ --------- .---.
1 ,,,......'\
Co .~
----
.--
-----
~
,.j
.~
V)
~
''-...,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
~
~
.~
-..
~
~
I
~
~O
~ ~
\f)O
cr{
~
~J
~."'d
'. *1""'!
k
~~~
~
~"''''''' "
~~ ,,,,2)
."...... . (\,)
~ M
,~~
<:-~......~ .~..~." "j 5b
~~~.. """".'
""..' Vl
~>'\;' ..:
10
.~
...~.......... ~
\ ...... ~
\ ~
\'. .. .... .C)
~
~
<L
Q)
'"C
o
o
(J.)
(j)
:::>
"'0
'C
<0
..J
<U
.c
.....,
"'C
c:
m
c:
m
a..
tJ).
~
o
=
=
C
~
~
Z
r-l
e
fI)
~
Vi
~
~
Z
o
CIJ
~
~
~
r..
~
.......,
c:
Q)
E
CD
c:
q::
(l)
0::
........
(/)
(1)
~....;
'- c:
m(J.)
L1-E
..........0..
c: 0
0_
~ (l)
>
~(l)
Q)-c
-'10
(I):+:;
.s::;C:
+-'(1)
"'-0
C<<-
m (f)
-(I)
0.0:::
e~
,......, ..-
<D f/)
~~
<DC
=~
-co
C-I
(1.) 0
E ......
co c:
-<0
"0 Q.
c:
:]. Q.)
o.t::.
()~
~.--
:!::L()
()~
,......,m
(/) Q)
Q) '-
::J<(
'CT...,
(1)--
.... E
(1)=
~S
l()
~
(t$
G.) 7
.< /.
oJ
c
QJ.
~
~.
\-D
\~
J
~
\i
.1 '1-
~.z
.1-
'\11
6
3
:r
fC
~
~
...
'=
",
<
~
e
=
z
....
==
...
;..
~
q)
3
~
"
\Jj
OJ
c
r
~
N
::S
VJ
)(
~ ~'\ \
......r;
<
~
\.t)
~
~
V,
N
~
.~ .-l-
\/) tJ)
2 \:
~,"f
~ _<C'
~,~
Jg
....:.>
~3
~ a
~r
............ ~
q.)
-
:I
..
=
6\
00
~
~
l~
~
~
-t-
\;~
~
V
~
~
,........... '--
(...-:.", ~
""V ~
-::::>
)
~
,.~
\~
\.j
~
~
~
.....~..I.
..." ~
Q I ~;: --:::-
1 ~-f'.~ ~
~
---... . ........-
')
')
\
\
( l- ~
\J\
S ~ +:l ---f1
.-1. ,
J rJ \J ~
C ~
,$ ::r
- .~
r s .-..,. ~
,-:t ~ ~ ....., ~~
""'J ~ ~ ~
;,.., "
~ '() ~
s ~ ~ ~
:3 ~
~ \\\
............ ~ t'-
~ ~ C:" ~ * ~
-..J::J ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ........... --
-/
\...,)
s:
............
~
\l)
s
~
'"
.--I
~
--
'. ./
~.-..)
~ ~
~
\[) ~,
.....-......-
i
.j
~
'j
~ j
,~ ~
~
~ ~
~.. .--.
~
-.--.
'2
0'
'i)
~
.:s
<" '''..' \ .
.,-:::::s
*
'\t\
~
C
~
i
\
z
cO
DJ..
'~
s:I:
)
/
{),
~
o
.~
.~
N (1.)
~~
+_ 0
--
~
~
J:
'-
(l)
~' ~
~z
~.-
o "E
'-:r ~
~
p
a
......
~.
Sj
(f.~
~ #'~
, '-.. ~
----'-, r~ v
. , --~.~ ~
~ , ~o
~ ~I ^~,
'~. f\~~
~"- ...~~ ~
--....
CI1
~
o
=
S
~.
~
Z
f;i;1
~
....
t:J:J
~
00
~
~
Z
o
fI"J.
.~
~
~
~
~
(l)
"0
o
t)
(l)
fJ)
::>
"'C
c:
(f3
-I
Q)
.s:::.
..,
""C
t:
<G
t:
<U
0:
.....,
c:
Q)
E
(j)
c:
tt:
(J.)
0::
..,
.tJ)
~~
t.-C
m Q.)
L1-E
............0.
c: 0
0-
fe~
tf!1<J.>
Q.)'"C
J-m
(1):+;:;
.s::.C
+JQ)
--0
c:--
CO (fJ
-<J.)
0-0:::
e~
......., .-
(1) en
::?!c
Q)
(])CJ
:5~
'"CO
C:...J
Q) 0
E+J
(13 c:
-cu
.00.
c: OJ
~.c
0.....,
Uc:
~.-
:t::: 1..0
()~
..,m
(J) ID
tV '-
::3. <3::
Ci.....,
(1)--
'- E
<1>=
~.9
1I1
...-l
~
~ ~ X
")< ~~X
r'-l
!r
~ \(l
<, \fl
')
~~
.~
~
~
t>
~
a ~
~3:
.C --t::..
~
~
~
~
J.:
==
....
~
=
~
...
rL1
~
3
~
V'
~
......
~
Q
,
.\:J t:l
1;1~
iQ I~
.~ .~
'rfi
t.-
'9
j
%
-5)
1~
(f
~
~
,J ~
f'J '___'
c:.::J
~
'V
tJJ
~
~
~
~
s:,.\
r
3
~
~
~
::r-
.~
~.
...::>
5:"
~
~
x
~
~
r-
-........
t,.
~
....~
~
~\
4
t
~~
~
\t-
N
~
>(
~
~
.~ Q
J~ ~
~ ~
'{.
G ~
~ N'J
rr- ~
" "'--
~
~:i I~
j ~ ~
\~ -==< cYJ
~
~
~
~
~
,~
'S
------
~
,~
()
""""-
~
~
"
<t:>
\J\
G
~
3
~
~
s;:'
~
_.._~.m.,..~_. t
p
-
~
~
~<U
d
\C4
."
rJJ.
~
o
=
==
c
~
~
~.
Q
f-IIl(
Vl
~
VJ.
r-:l
~
Z
o
rJ':J
~
~
~
~
~
~
(l)
"0
o
(.)
Q)
tJ)
::J
-C
c::
CO
-I
(f)
s::.
.......,
"0
c:
CO
c:
m
CL
..,
c:
(J)
E
(J.>
c:
q:
(f)
.~
.......,
,0
~...;
'- c::
m Q)
u.E
............0..
c: 0
0_
~ (1)
>
~. tU
(1)""0
-'(ij
Q)~
..c:C:
..... CD
--0
c:--
("0 fh
-(J)
0..0::
e~
....., ..-
(1.) <f)
~~
cDC
= 3:
-00
t:...J
Q) 0
e....
(tJ c:
';"'('0
"0 c..
c: Q)
::].r::.
0...,
0c
~.-
.- I.C)
<.)T-
+- m
~. ~,
:3<(
O"+w
(1).-
t- E
Q):'::::
$.9
~ :'\
~~
cl~
~*
~S:0
V
\.
~
t(')
~
e'4
QI
..
<
~
~
f
",
~
-<
'\
~
~
\~
\t
4l
e
e'#
Z
..
==
.-
,..
~
~
~
;J
~
.....
~
~
~
~
~
"-
~
:J
\J
~
~
~
'-1
..tJ
)~
~....:), rJ -
~ ~o
l::J '-~
e ~&-
\J':t
~ ij
.~
62:
<:.I) ~
~~
~
(:::p f'/'
)r~
~~
-----
;;~
~ ~
"-D-S
.~
~
\-; ~
~
\
~
\
D
\
8
b
~ '
V)
,5
~
r-l.~
V
, ~
.S
.~
'S
ry
\----
1"
~( ~;
~Df
Q/;(
(
j
:0rr-
r:J './'
J
)
(
J
v
1
.:;
,~
~
:J
1
3
~
h
~'1
---:,;:...
~
(5
'...,I'
-...I
--.J
~
V)
~ ~
~. ,~
.~
(~
~
-.-
--.
5
() ~
'-..)
~
v ~.
--.')
s::
---
V
\...1
\.~
T
:s-
.~
.~
lr)
\<\
~.
..............
-->.
~
-"
:S 'V
~ ~
--.) '"
2::. ~
4~
-9 ,~
.~ .-
t' ,r:
-- ......,.;
<~ >
ill~
~
~
.~
~
o
~
'.1\
~
\
~.~
'..0
00
~
o
=
=
"
'I-(
~
z
r;.;J'
~
I-(
rTJ
E-l'
f.Jj
~
z
o
rJ')
~
~
~
~
~
,'! ~
~
>() J t
~
rIJ
41
..
f'C
"=
<
'(J~
;: 0--- ('f) '~
In ~ ~ ~
~ '-- /J V)
'"'-...
(J.)
"'0
o
o
Q)
0,
=>
-0
c:
m
...J
(J.)
.s::.
.......,
-0
c:
m
c:
CO
a..
......,
C
(1)
E
(1)
c:
ti=
(1)
a:::
...,
(f)
~+'
s.... c:
m Q)
u..E
". c..
c: 0
0-
~ <J.)
>
~.(J.)
Q)-c
-'(ij
Q);
..c:C
""Q.)
-"'0
c.-
ca(/)
-(1)
a..c::::
O~
'- .+oJ
......., .-
<D f.fJ
:EC
(J)
(1)C)
;;~
-CO
C:-1
(J) 0
E""
m c:
-, CO
.0 . c..
c: Qj
;:]..c:
o .+oJ
t)c:
~.-
.1:: lC')
O~
+-t(tJ
~ ~
;:j<(
0'"'......
(1)'-
$- E
<1>:=
~B
\.- ~
~ .~. 'n5 ~ ~
i \.. .. ~. (, ~
i~ .... 1~
~c ~ \ ~
~ ~ '~
~u~~
r.I{\ ,
;." \\j' '
.; \ \\
== \
b.t) \
~,.".'" 1.
'\
\ \
\", \\ \
'" \ \
~'~
\.
\.
~'
{j., .
.?ti
,\.../J
u
~
~
j
N
\j
v:
--5:
~
..1-
~
r-
~
~
0'\
::5
(ll
.....J
.\:S
)'-
'^ ~
w
~
.J
~
<i
---d
~
-J
::t
~
~
cj
J
j
~
......)
(
)
~
~
:J
\--
\{)
tu
V
Z
ltl
tJ.
3
tt
-1
....)
'"
Z
\.U
lU
--0
7:
j
-1
\ll
Z
~
~
()
n
\f\
(J
"""""t-"
...J
V.
-<
u
~
1_
fV
v1
)~
rv',
,~
,~,
\J
'''';)''' ~
o "'~~u.~--
~-'~.,) ~\~
, 0- .0'
~ ,~ . ~
--. . .-==---....
>~
..~
;,....,>
,.,..I
~/
~
~
~
CV)
"""'--
())
~
:5 a
~+
~l V)
~\
,:p ~
~~ '-F
7. .... '-
\~\ (;):::
''-/1
~
~-
,3\
~-
~
~
J.~
~
,
~.'~
to
~
~
t:
~
~0
~
,~z
~\ "E
"V.~
rn
~
o
=
=
~
~
r-J
Z
~
~
~
Vl
~
rJ:J.
~.
~
Z
o
tI:J
=:
r-1
~
~.
:;
(1)
-0
o
U
(1)
IJ)
::l
-0
c:
'm
.....J
Q.)
..c:
......,
-0
c:
<<S
c:
CO
a.
......,
c:
(1)
E
(l)
c:
q::
(J.)
a:::
-+oJ
en
Q)
~...;
1- c:
('Q Q)
u..E
~c..
c: 0
0-
~~
im
Q)'"'C
J .(tS
(1);
..c:C
.....(1)
c::2
(11 ~
0-0::
e'~
"....., .. -
(l) (/)
:Eai
Q)Q
~~
-00
C:-J
(I.) 0
e.......,
<<1 c: t
- (\'J ==
'0 c.. ~
c:. <1> ==
::J ..r::. CI)
o .......,.. ...
<.) c' r.L1
~.-
;t: to
u~
+-,a;s
~.. ~
='<(
0"'.....,
(1)'-
~ E
Q):'=
~B
'f)
~
<C
~
-
~
C/")
~
Gfl
'fI1
~
",
",
-<
<L)
a
=
z
\'P
~
>:-
~
o
>-
~
~
.....
=
..JIM(
J.
~
j;
~
J
n
\J
,~
~
J
(t
Lf1
----
f"'\
~
'}
J
~
;
~
(j
~
.....
.
~
w
o
~
~
~
~
'~
("""\
:;;(
o
-:-
'0
/
~
,~
Q)
'J
~
l". .s:
~'
~
~
~-
(rl.-.>
,'~
\-
......... .
\..A
-y/1
\' ,
f)
---
~
'~
C3
<e:~
1
;r
"-:J
?
~
~
~
~
'-i-'
,,-.1
\
"v
~
~
~
~
t()
, '~
11
~
~
2
j
~
\J\
,r
---
'Q
,
.. ..........
~
---...
r
\C1
~
----
\V\
J
i ~ \
'3 to
o
0vD I-
. II
~
. ~ -~
'--2VJ
J
i
~
;1
'~
cSJ
, C'\ ~.
...............,,--
'-, ~l.
,,~~
,&" "-,
~
"~J 4:~
--...
.D
r.T1
~
o
;
~
t-(
~
z
~
~
t-(
V;
~
{/).
~
~
z
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
CD
-c
o
()
(J.)
<n
::J
-0
c:
CO
-I
Q)
.t::.
+oJ
'"'0
c:
ca
c:
~
a...
.....,
c:
Q)
E
CD
c::
tt::
(1)
0:::
.....,
en
Q)
~..;
s-C
OJ'
~E
............c..
c:, 0
o-
w Q)
'- >
~Q)
(1)"'0
-'ro
<V :;:;'
.,eC
+-'(1)
--0
t:.-
<<s fJ)
-(1)
Cl.cr.:
ea
......., . -
Q) (f)
2~
IDe
=~
"Co
C:-I
Q) 0
E""
co c:
-(0
.0 c.
c:: <D
::1.J::
0........
U' c:
~..-
."!:: LO
u~.
....,ro
(J) (],)
(Jj '-
:3<(
tT..,
(1)--
L... E
Q):':
SB
:\v..,. ~'r...
~ ~
~
~
V\
~~
~ '"
~
.jj, ~ ~ ~ ~
~ +-- ~ ~
~ \~ ,
I <. { ~
rIJ ~~
rn ~ 1. ~
~ ~
a. ! ~
~ j \
~ 3 ~
< ~
;j J 3 ~
~ ~
l"
L, \ ('i ~ ~ ~
~ r.J r ~ ~
\ \') (~ M
~ ----
~
. ~ r\~.
!"1i
Zt:\
i I ~\
.".. '~..
,,.' ,
.~
;r
~
\. ~
lJ
~
..,~
.~
~
~
~
~
LL
~
-:i.
~
~
(/J
. \.
~
.-.......-
~
~
~
~
[2
'(:)
~
'''-'"'.
~
~
':::r,
d"
:j .
~~ 'f-
.~ -
',,- i
')
~ ~
(0
~ ~
jZ'
N\\!
~1;
~ ~~.
~ ~ 0/
~,~~
,~ --:-0
~ '3;
~ c5
~ Cl
~
~
\J
~
~
~
'~
~
~
~
~
~
~
':"'""\
~
~
~
~
~
~
\~
)
1;
~
v
:L
v
,~
l
-~
Vf)
'-3
--S'>
----
~
'::)
-2
;)
-1.
aJ.
<;t
~
~
~
~
~
C-o
,~
~
~
~,
~
~
.0 .4C:,)
~~
,- c~
~ ~
"-
,(::J P
I -..
;\ ~
~ 0
--
.....-
o
.............
\.J.
)J
~~
iO
~
~
\))
~
(;.)
~.
~
~I
~ ~
t, I p...
't'
VJ.
~
o
=
==
C-'
~
~
~
=
~
rrJ.
~.
Vl
~
~
Z
o
Vl
~
~
t:
.:;
en
-0
o
U
Q)
UJ
:)
-0
c:
<U
.....J
<1>
..c
...,
-c
c:
as
c:
<<1
a.
4-'
c:
OJ
E
(J)
c:
q::
(1)
a::
......,
(J)
(J.)
~.;
'- c:
m.(1)
u..E
...........Q..
c: 0
0_
~ ~
~OJ
<J.) "0.
-;m
(1)~
..c:C
+-'(J.)
--0
c:..-
(\'J (/)
-(1)
Cl..a:::
e~
......., .-
(l) (J)
~ .a5
<DC)
;~
-00
C-I
Q) 0
E"'"
m c:
-CO
- U 0...
c: Q)
::J.r::.
0..,
()c:
~.-
.__ lO
O~
+J(tS
~ .~
::), <(
tT..-
(1)--
.... E
(1)=
~B
Vi
;..(
"~
~ ,~., ~
J. ""-
<E"
\
~
fiJ J
rI} ~
~
- .~
;g ~\)
< .~
............
~
^^'
~
~,
"-
'iJ
~
<}J
~
~
'>
~
~
\p
~
'+
~
~
a ~ ~
~ ~ ~
.$ ~
a..
~
~
~
\
~
~
\J
f
~
'~
~
~
..............
,~
~
\;\
.~
tJ
~
~
~
~
'C ~ ~.~
':), ~ .~
~ --~
4'!t '---- ~ ~
=~l~~
'^
" ~
~.~
rr~
\K.Z
" S"'
~~W'. ~
v; V' 4J
~.. j -y
t: - J
~ ~ ~'-
J ~ Q
()
i
~I
'"
~
~
~
..........
---
':J
(J
~
~
~
<)':>
'rJ\
-
~
~
~
J
~.
<:r::
G
~
o
,,~
\
Vi ~
:r- C\./\
~ .r+-
~ .~
1
~
d \!1
q...; C
~~
'-
. ~ ~
eX ~. ~
'-1 ~
j~ \J,
Qb~~
C) 0
"'l'.~,,, ~
~
~
'VJ
~
.. ..-
o
o
~
~
.,.-.
r
rJ"J.
~
o
=
==
"
~
r-:l
Z
~
.~
...
VJ.
~
rJ:J
~
~
z
o
tI:J
~
~
~
~
~
~
Q)
"'C
o
l)
(J)
(/)
::>
'"'0
c
rn
-J
(1)
..c:
......
"C.
c:
CO
c:
m
a..
........,
.r::
Q)
E
(1)
c:
.l;::
(1)
~
......,
(J)
~.,.j
...... c:
<t3 (1)
u..E
..........c...
c: 0
0_
~ ~
~Q)
Q.)-c
-'(0
(l)+:;
..c:C
""""'<1.)
--0
'C: ,,-
(\j (/)
-(1)
Q..a::
0>.
...... ~
......, . -
Q.) rJ)
~~
<1>0
5~
"'Co
C:-I
Q) 0
E~
CG c:
-m
.0 . c..
c: <l)
:J...c:
0.......,
()c:
~--
:t:: LO
0"-
~ en
~.~
:;) .<(
0"'....,
(1)--
'- E
(J);':::
~B
l()
.-.4
~ Y\
QI \\ '1
< 'J!..
$
~ .~
~~
~ .~
~. ~--
" ~
j ~ *-
~ ~ ~
~
'"
~
""
k
CJ
sa
e'#
Z
,
'"',
<~
i "'~
t ~
~ '-:C
~ ~
t::
Q
,.
:=
.......
~
==
elJ
.,.
00
IJ\
\V
~
~
C1-
~
.~
>
~
---.
----
~
\;;
'-.
('1\
~.s-
\.J)
"""'-
~
~
~
ei-
{J\
'y'
\-
\-
D
C:-
~. ~
\~ \i
~ ~
~
~
~
s::
~
-'
~..0
<t s:
~C5
~ (j
~~
'3 ~--
. . ---.J
o
~
r() .~
t
0/
V'
\f\
=5
--(9
~~
V ,,,-,,
~ >
;. \3'
~p
(::r-
~
o
~
~
-E:
.~
~
$.
~
fD
,~
\J
D
.........---.
~
j
~
\~
~
.:s:
....
U
G
:I:
xS\
~
~
~
~
~
~
\n
~
\0
"
~
\~
~
"~
t~
~
~.
<~~
,~
~
'~
'P'
r.t:J
~
-=
5
~
~
r-1
e
r:t:J.
E-<
tI1
r-.l
~
Z
o
r.n
~
~
.~
~
~
<U
-c
o
U
'Q)
(/)
::)
-0
c
co
..J
<D
.,c.
.........
-0
C
(U
c:
J!!
0..
.......
c:
Q)
E
(J.)
t::
t;::
<1>
a::
1i)
~....
'- c:
m <D
u..E
'--a..
c: 0
0_
e ~ a
~ (l) e'4
Q)""C Z
-, . <tS .....
Q) ~. .!
.c. c a.
"""'(1) ~
c:2
ca ~
CLa:::
e.~
......., . -
<D tJ)
.:E ~
(J)Q
:5~
-co
C:-l
Q) 0
E+oJ
(0 c:
-co
'00.
c: Q)
::;]~
0+-1
o c'
~.-
:t: I.()
()~
.......,('0
(/) (J.)
(1)......
:J<(
cr.......,
(1)--
.~ E
Q)~ \
~.s
It') <: \ \ L- ~ \ '7
..-I .~ '--
<<I \ '\ '> ~ ~ 3; (0
4#
< ~ -~)
l;fl
~
'-
-=
"=
<
I
(!;5
~
-r:
J'
i
(A
~
-;?
~
'"
~ t
1t
~ ~
" \(\
'- ~
'3
~
~ ~
~ ~
\
'x
~
""-
'J
N
\1\
\J
'-
(J
to
10
t(J
..~
~
~
\\J
~
...,
~
C)
~
~
~
,..0
. ~:r
~
cO
rJ
~~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ \1\ . ~
~ ,'j -c ~. ~
~ QJ -S .~ ~
~
Q
--.........
~
~
~
'J
t
~....)
~
............. ~.~,
.~ .~
~
\r)
...............
\...
~
':j-
r{)
m
~
"-
~
:3
---
.~
LD
1
J
Vu
\1
J
.~
1
'~.
J
(
..---.
..'~
o
.0
~
\~
\?f
-........
~ ~
~
~
d
~s
-R~
\. ~
~~
0-
~
~
\S'.,~
~..,~
\~ ~
,,-9. ~
~.~
~~
)
(\'~
\/
If\
~
V\
~
\f1
~
~
<:::t
00
~
o
~
c.?
t-(
.~
z
.~.
S
r.I'J
~
00
~
z
o
{/:1
, .~
.~
~
~
~
(1)
"'0
o
o
(1)
<J)
.::>
-0
c:
co
....J
<D
...c:
.....,
""0
c:
(U
c
m
a..
.....,
c:
Q.)
E
(1)
c:
It::
<J.)
Q::
........,
(/)
Q)
'~ .;
s... c:
co (1)
u..E
"0..
c: 0
o-
w Q)
t- ~
~Q)
(1)"'0
-'10
(1) :+:;.
..c:f::
"""'(1)
-"0
c.-
as (/)
-(1.)
0..0:::
o ~.
'- .......,
,......, x _
<1> (/)
:2t:
Q)
<1>Q
..c: '
....,~
\:)0
C-1
Q.) 0
E+-t
Ct1 c:
-('Q
~o Q.
1:: Q)
::1.t:
0....,
Oc:
~.-
:!: lO.
0~
""'<<1
~ ~
::i<(
0'"'.....,
(1)--
L.. E
Q)==
~E
tI)
i ~ \ ~
-<
"".)
r.I}
Qi
J.
"t'
",
-<
.l
o
Vi
r:)
~
~
~
o
~
![2
Q.)
e
~
z
...
.=
J.
~
~
~
~
V\
Q
.
-J,
~
~
~
...,
::::;::;
OJ
....
~
~
t'
"'-
.......
,
.\.
J
~
\
j
i
}
~
~
~
~.'
l!:
3
~
~
~
~
......
~
'-'>
~
to
~
~
~
o
<::s
! i
.~ <:$
o
cJ)
~
J
V),
D
(">
~
(V)
\\
r
~
>
:i
,
\j
2
~,
P
~.
~
~
J
~
CJ
~
'\r
.............
'0
~. (1)
'f'. ~
kJO
c
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
. <t)
'->8
OJ
~z
~. ~
.~
~
3.~
t'-
~
-...
I
~ l~~ ~~-
- =. -J.f
- - .--.__ . ____ _._~ I '__'n
~!
. 1
~. ' \ Ii
.~~
"- \
00.,
~
o
=
==
c
~
J;;I.1
z
~
.~
~
Vl
~
00
~.
~
Z
o
V1
~
'~
~
~
~
4>.
-0
o
U
(J.)
fJ)
::>
"'0
c:
(U
-I
<D
&:.
.....,
-0
C
OJ
c:
m
a..
.......
c:
Q)
E
0.>
c:
t;::.:
OJ
0::
.......,
(/)
~~
...... c:
m CD
u..E
"c..
c:: 0
0......
fIJ (J.)
'- >
~(1)
0)"0
"J-CO
(1):';::;
~c:
""'(1)
...."0
C:"-
(0 fJ)
-(1)
0...0::
0>.
'- ~
......, .-
(J) (f)
:2c
Q)
<DO
5~
-CO
C:-l
(J.) 0
E""
CO c:
-<<I
'0 a.
t: (l)
::i..c:
0...,
()c:
~.-
:t:. LO
O~
.......,ca
en (J)
<1> '-
::1<(
tT...,
(J}"-
So- E
(1):':
~E
'I')
i~-t~
-< ~
~
.(1} ~
~ . ~ J
-
~ ~
~
~
""""-.
a ~
= \J
Z -J
~
s=
~~
~
.....
==
.C
~
~
,.
==
...
~
=:
CJJ
.-
tfj
~
.....
t'#
Q
~
~
.~
~...
\b
~
tn r
~ ~~.
!~
~ ~
OJ ~
.--- ---
c
~
~
~
~
VJ
~.
~
N
1'-'-J
y-t---
.~...... ~.
~g
. ~
.~ ~
~~~
.~ .
~
~
~ '1
cf-g
~
~
'?
- Q
~ \
~.o
~-- -.
.~
~
~
\J..
:::j
~
~
~
~
<:
"""-
~
~
~
:3;
c:J
~
~
"'--""""",
~
~
'~
'-...j
\t ~
~ \J
~. V\
~
~
-. ~
~. "-' ,
"..~,-,---. '0
~ ~
\'-
~
~
~
.0 tf)
~ '-~
~-
y - 1
? ~ ,t
~ ~
j +:::
j~
"S. ~ i:.
tr .~~. ~!
-- \ ~
. . D
d -:J s
~ ~~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~,~
. ~~.
~~
.~
<~
~
o " 0
--
3
t~
3;
'CJ
~
~
f
~
. ~ '
s
~
~
d
~
~
:::>
---
C7)
~
'-.i
~
-:5
~
~
~
~
r-
3>
~
~
~
~
~
~
C>
....---
r0,
;J\
\f\
~
t---
~ .~. ~
~~.~.~
~ )~
, ~ \ 1 ~.~
\
<
>'Z
'-~ ~
\J
Y2
a
~
~
\-:D
~-.l:
~N Q)
G~" ~
'Y
.~
;;::::;;
.---
r\-
v
td
~
r.n
~
o
=
==
~
~
~
~
8
trJ.
E-
trJ
~
~
z
o
00
~
~
~
~
~
~
(1)
"'0
o
(.)
<U
(/)
=>
"
c:
<<S
..J
Q.)
.s:::.
~
-0
C
as
c:
J!!
a..
........
c:
CJ.)
E
<1>
c:
q::
<1>
0:::
.......,
en
~....
'- r:
ctS <1>
u..E
~a..
c:: 0
0-
~ ~
~<1>
<1>-"0
-, . t'tS
(1);
.J::.C
........(1.)
-"'0
C:..-
co (/)
-(1.)
0...0:::
e~
......., << -
<u en
:Eai
<1>0
;~
-00
C-J
(J.) 0
E .........
<<S c:
-co
"0 C.
c: (1.)
::J~
0.....
Uc;:
~.-
:t:: I.C')
o~
..,co
en Q)
Q.) '-
:J<(
0-......,
(1)--
I- E
<1>:'::
~B
II') .~
...-( ~
cc '< >-
e
-<
.............. ! ~
"~ ("\...
f'. C1' V
~ ~ $> ::r
... r
Q) ~ ~ ~ ~
,~ ~ Q)
'~ "<J 0 .4-'
.~ ,......... ~ \fJ
VJ --- ,;;) c ~
Q'l ~ \..-
4) Q
a. -...., \l tI\
." ~ 0
~ ~ 3 v
-< ~+- :d ~
\If o-p J J
~ V, "2-
~ ~
~ ::f .~ \
t
~ ..........0 -"
.~ ""-""
~ -0 ~
-..........: .-......
4> ~
~~
.... ~..J
== ~
.C s:
~ ~
s1
U}
~
~ ~
~..~. ~.
~
t
'F'
~
V
<1'
"
J
~
'F
~
~l
e
~ !
\" -r
/
~ ~..
() 9
~
~
j
c1
~
--..:..
."9
~
~.
\) 0 ~
..::s- f'-
~ ~
~
S ~
---....
\ -r sJ::
~ '-./l -S
0 ---.:;:. .~
'-.J ~ rs
~
--J --.l
()o f"-
v\ \.J\ N
.::r
tf\ ~ :J
.; ~
~
~
s:
\)
CJ
-~
J
~,
~
~
.~
~
N
~
.0
~
\\
'r
r\.~
~O
~
~
~
"
~
tU
~ ~
~z
~.'S
. .-!
~.~
1'... .
CIl
~
o
=
S
t-Il
.~
Z
~
~
,~ ;
~
en
~
~
Z
o
r.J':J
"
~
~
fir..
~
(J)
-0
o
o
Q)
rJ)
::>
-0
c:
ca
...J
.<1>
..c:
.......
'"0
c:
ca
c:
co
CL
.........
c:
Q.)
E
<D
c::
t+=
(J.)
a:::
.......,
CI)
~~
s- c:
to CD
u..E
..........Q.
c:: 0
0-
~ ~
~ .0)
Q)-c
J('Q
(1)+::
..s::;C
+JQ.)
- '-0
c:..-
co en
-CD
0-0::
e.~
......., ..-
Q) -(f)
::E~
<1.>Cl
;~
*00
C:-J
(1)0
E.....
co c:
-co
"0 0..
c: <1>
;:, J:.
0......,
()c:
~.-
~I..O
l)~
"""'(0
~~
::3<(
C"'+-'
(1.)'-
t.- E
(1):'::
~B
k,
U\
~
~
~ '"
f ~
", ""
." ~
-< '^:
~
Q.,l
is
.
z
...
==
..
..
~
'i..
.~. \,( ~,
\:J
.~
~
~
.~
~
M
~
J'"
\0'
<r;::4
(J\
'Z'<
~
~
{ f'
'0)
'?,.
V\
~
v
~
CJ
~
1
"0
f;:!-
~
.......
~
Q
&:
~~
.~
~
~
r-
-............
t\J.
;;r.
"IJ
,~~}
G
~
'\)
~
~
~
~
~
Qd
.t,
~
N
~
1~
\v1
~1
.~
r
''?
c..
~
/'
~
~
~
~
~
'-.,)
.~
.............
<::z:;
~
L
~
~
(
~
'-..)
I')
>lp.,
'\I "
V
~
\~~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
)
'-
. ""'-..
..J
~~
61
~~
~
~
\
~, ~
~~ ~
.:--
~
~
<:
T-
. U' ^
~
....
\"~'~
V\,
c(
~
,.-
-..l
.--S:..
~:.,
--
(f
OJ
\:tl
...s:
~3
.~
r~
\-
~
"'-J
r~
'--.....
(
-+
~
'::>
~
~ ~
/\ \-
t< t)
~ '~.
~
"
D
~
~
~
-:s-
.~
o
2.}-='
',-
::d-
J
i -:5
:(1:
~
~
~
:1
~
;:i
~$
'tt .~
~
~
....,<......"" ~
~J
.~
....)
(:)
~
~
N
~
,-,
rJ
~
-.....
--
~
~
.>
v
1:tj
(Q
~
=1J
~ v
-~ ~
~z
'---- ~
<D .S
~ ~
~tl..
,j ""-""
~
"
1 <U
<.''::''''-''-.... ......,. -. .~
-'_.~.,.,~ )P
~....... --. ~
:~~, Sh
~ ..-!
">.".' · r/1
~~'" ~:
v
~
Q)
...."-..........."..'.;,;'-..~
\ ~~:. ,.~
\ ....0:--.:" \.."I
.'~~
~.<>
-,.':" '~~
00
~
o
~
~
~
z
~
Q
~
r.J':1
~
r../j
~
~
z
o
r:J'1
~
~
~
~
.e;
~
Q.)
-0
o
()
(l)
tIJ
::J
'"0
c:
<<1
-I
(1)
...c::
.....,
-0
c=
m
c:::
m
a..
......
c:
<U
E
(J.)
c:
t;::
Q.)
a:::
......,
tfJ
~~
'- c:
en (1)
u...E
"0-
Co
0_
~~
~(1)
(J.)"'C
"""(Q
(1):';:;
..r::.C
"""'(1)
--0
c.-
m (fJ
-(1)
CLex:
e~
....,. .-
<D (()
~a3
<DQ
=~
-00
C::..J
G> 0
E+-t
as c:
-<0
'00-
c: Q)
::1..c
0.......,
ur:
~.-
:t::1.()
u~
+-1(0
~ ~
::3<(
tT.......,
(1)'-
'- E
(].)=
~.8
~ '> \ ~
.. .J
<
c-
-f
rI'l
l'I1
~
..
~
-=
-<
.~
"'
l
3
V)
~
--
Qj
e
ec
Z
.....
==
.-
;.
~
........
3
w
*~
v}
~
'V
---
~
;.
==
..
~
==
=.e
.,.
rJ1
.~
.~
~
tJ
~
.~
~
~
~ V\..J
....
~~
r')
VJ
~
d
~
t1
~
~
~
<:)
~
,~
N
~o
1d
C4
'~
Q)
"
Vi
()
~
~
~
~o~
l.."S
-.;> ~
~z
n........
'~ d
-L or::
~) ~
00:
,/ ~
-- 0 ~
~
~ '.
\5 .~
,rn
~ r,if)
~ .~
'v 0
~.~
'. 13
~. ~
c0.v
~
1'\ 1\ oJ"
J \ { \., .
I V
~.
>~
........
",
"\
--.....
.~
r./').
~
~
~
~
~
.~
fI)
~
z
o
.~
~
t
~
(1)
-g
\.)
(J)
(/)
::;
'\j
c:
ca
-I
(J.)
.c:.
....,
"'0
c:
(\j
c
"m
a..
.......,
c:
(1)
E
(J.)
c:
u::
CD
a::
+J
(I)
CD
$..;
c:
'-. . .(1)
mE
b!::Q.
Co
o-
f! ~
~OJ
(1)"0
J(\j
(1):;:7
...c:C
"*-'Q)
"""'0
t:.-
a3 (J)
-(J,)
Q..cx:
o .~
'-~
4<wJ .-
<D U)
2 .~
<va
:5~
-po
C-l
(1) 0
E+-
as c::
-<<1
'0 a..
c: <U
:J,J::
0..-
0c:
c~
(Jr-
......,rn
f/') <J.)
~~
0"'..-
(1,)--
~ E
QJ=
$2
N
~
,........
\J1
all)
~~
~.~
:2. .~
_.~
~.
---
-;::::7
00.
~.
o
t:Q
=
C
....
~
z
~
~
.~
rJj
~
U1
~
~
Z'
o
r:I:1
.~
~
~
~
~
t-)
Q)
.'"C'
o
()
Q.)
fIJ
::>
'T,j
c::
CO
...J
(l)
.s::.
.......
"'C
c:
(\1
c:
CO
0...
...-
s:::
(J.)
E
<t)
c:
q::
<D
ex:
......,
(/)
~....
....... c
m (J.)
u.E
~o...
c:: 0
0-
e (1)
::>
tI<D
(1)"0
-'m
<1.);
...s::C
+-'(l)
-"Tj
c:..-
CO <tJ
-(])
o...cr:
o~
'- ........
........ ,,-
Q)(f)
:Ec
(])
mC)
=~
-00
C:..J
0.> 0
E""""
m c:
__as
.0 0..
c: (J)
J...c:
0,..-
Uc:
~<<-
:t:: 1.0
(.).~
........,('0
~ ~
:3<(
CT+J
(1)--
..... E
(1):'::
~S
ltI
~
~
CLl
l-c
-<
tIl
r/.l'
<Ii
..
""
."
<
Q
,a
cc
Z
.....
==
.....
..
~
----
~
::::,-
"-.""'-
<s-
~
()
~
x
~
~
......
Z
&
~
~I
('
~ . ~
~ ..-
.s: J
~ .~
~ ~
3
~ ."'-
'" ~ . "-
~" ~ ~
~(}. v" ~ ~
o tf' .~
:.f. .. ~ ()-. S 4-
tJ.... Q ~.. ~~'"
~ \.J ~/
\:r ~ .~
~ ... ~ ~ i ()
\~ '~~ ~
\) I~ U IV ~
I~ .... ~
t' f'. "
<< ~. .,,\j .'A
"^ ~ .. \lJ ~ (j)
'" 'Jl \r).
" .~ ,
'i
N
t:r
~
~
~
E
~
~
~
l:Q
~
~
~
]
~.
\i\
~
(\C)
~
~ t
&. 't
~ tA
"
~
:t
'\J
~
.~
~~
~
t; ~
\~ ~
~ ~
j
.~
~~.
~
~
\tJ
~
a ~
\:J
"-
,~
:::r
,
~
~
----
~~
~
,)
~
~
'2.
T
tt
tj)
\~
~
P
<l)
<\..~.
'0
~
~
-"
~
\.~
.)
~
.....-
~
Q
~
I
cs-
I
'\
~
~
~ ~ t)
~ ~ ~
~' ~.~
" ~'-
,......loi-J0j
'r-
'-'
2
w
t:1
-"
Vl
~
,z.
\~
00.
~
o
=
S
...
Z
r-1
~
~
fI:J
E-
rr;
~
.~
z
o
V1
~
~
~
r-.
r-l
~
(I)
"
o
()
<l>
tIJ
::>
\j
c:
as
-'
Q)
.s::.
......,
-0
c:
co
c:
co
0..
......,
c:
(I.)
E
(J)
c:
q:
Q)
cr:
....
en
~..:
'- c:
coeD
l1-E
~Q.
Co
0_
~ <D
~ .6';
(1)-0
-, -
as
<D+:z
..c:.C:
"""'(J)
"'-0
c--
m {/J
-(1)
0-0::
e~
15-0;
~c:
Q)
<l>O
5~
T,jO
c:-I
CD 0
E"""
CD C
=('0
0-
co..
:3 (J)
o..c
().~
c:
~--
;t: ..I.C)
QT-
1;)(0
Q) ~
::J<t.:
tT'......,
(1.)--
'- E
.(J) =
~S
WJ
~
a.
""
""
<
N
:t
c0
.~
.S;:
c
~
~J
o
.V\
f'
<>>
a
ec
Z
..
=
.-
-
.~
G
.--C
l/j
Q.)
a.
S
=
==
~
.~
00
'-.J
~,
~
~
?'
~
~
~
~
L/~
~
~
'-"""",
~...~)^'
o
Z
~
s...
rt
v
U
J
~
~,
o
C
c
~
1r-
~
3
l/J
~
rIl
~
~
~
Q)
~
~
~
t:
j
.(r-
\tJ
..
V)
~
~
Q
F
J
~
f
.-.
~
i
~
~
PETITION
to
EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
Submitted July 5, 2006
"We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other
appropriate action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R-l
to R-2 in areas of the Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated
"Medium Density Residential" and to remain in effect until
standards to protect the neighborhood's character are adopted."
Siglled b)T 286 Etlgel1.e Citizens
~
. ,
JWR.eHN
Jefferson Westside Residents tor Healthy Neighborhoods
~ .;
We request Ci!:Y Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R-1 to R-2 in areas of the
. Jefferson neighborhOOd recently redesignated -Medium Density Residential"
. and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's .
character are adopted.
Date
Print N8me
Address
SO'k)
JE"fF
J&
\J Ul.c, ( ~ l A. Os rcc!L>
Print Name
61tft..............O.....dk
I D te
/1//
'<~
. JWReHN .
le1itJ m WestsideResidents for Healthy Neil bitoods -
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R-1 to R-2in areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated "Medium Density Residential.
- - and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted. . -
w
Pritit Name
Address
d..l4fo
t'5 3t) u) ~Sk~
&1 J~WI!d7 .
') ,,'"
;-:~ ":
*t.
\.:.~J'
17~/p
lb
f-b2-b J~~ OC
S-6o V/ Ii +S
::JEFF
t,..; *: S#/
lh
~tttz( ~ to/I 1100
Print Name ~ Dale
/1r0
.. ,
JWReHN
Jeft'eli, Westside Residents for Healthy NeiW )moods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, . to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R..1to R-2 in areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recenUy redesignated aMedlum Density Relidentiallt
and. to remain in effect. unll standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Date
Print Name Address
~ t · ~., I1a-W . J~.:b ~i){
~lfH 1/j)f)ttQ&..~. y.rs-W lrlt~E f"1t6r~
L~5.1\ G!tll'''e~ If..[o7 Vv/1.SH IIV N
"V, ,
<<:
If:,
Ib
~
~4eJH-
4Gatherer's Signature
> -Jc(I1~-()'
.~
Date.
{;J
I~
J F__.
/1;/
:' p
,. ,
" ,~JWReHN
Jeffell ! W cstside Ruidents for Healthy Neil brhoods
.
We requestClyCouncil adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone 'changes from' R-1 to R-2 In areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated "Medium Density Residential" .
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Date
. Print Name
Address
, .l"~~,,~~~,
Il,/t '/
r!l~
Gatberer'sSignature
;1tt/s !JAr; { .
Print Name
5b.iht
I Date
lvA$/f .
Ie
! Lf~
. .
, JWR.eHN
leifer. I Westside Ilesidents for Healthy Nei~ lrhoods
, -I
We request CityCouncit adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R-1 to R-2 in areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated "MedIum . Density . Restdentiar
and to remain. in effect until standarcls to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Date
- Print Name,
/,b
~
ltJA7f
It{
1&
~{~
....... ...... ....- erer'sSignature ...
A^j.rdL ~(j/1rlj
Print Name
z -;1 -1)6
Date
1 /
! fe
.. .
lWReHN
Je1iet h Westside Residents for Healthy Neighmoods
We req,uest City Council adopt a moratorium. or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R..1 to R-2.in areas of the
. Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated -Medium Densitr "esldential.
and to remain in effect until standM:ls to protlCtthe neighborhood's
eIlarader are adopted.
o
Print Name
w
Dft1
.::J ClW\~ ( 0GAfddA
I"
'fiSC gt(lM8lt5l1/~
wlr'JlI
t> ~'I()I::'
Ib
~~tf~7
"~erer's Sipamre .
~'l?/~ ~"I/'
Print Name
1-'3-tJk
Dat.e
1&
lWlleHN <
Jefferson Westside B.esidents for Healthy Neigbborhoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohfbl zone changes from' ~..1 to R-2in areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recenUyredesignated -Medium O&nsity.Residential"
and to remain In effect until standards to pretect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Date
8i ... ture
Print Name
Address
w
W$1T" I &r.
I~ ItL Sf.
I~~
/57Y LawYeI1ce
tS74LA~~
#>.
\'- 'l~\\~
Je-+F4/d'4iIt..,
~vtL ~.\t((
<5TE\l~ $E(Q) \(\,
l\o1-<b \'-"~ ~ L,.~
172-'-{ L e\~. " ~ c cs-f
l ~ L( 0 (QJ.JJ rtV1~ jf-
l1L\v lA~~(E Sf.
151D. L:w.;r4A fJ2
IjCJ tt.,J~,J L.J (t
J...Aw
/tV A-J!1
Jr:'
~..~~
... <berer's Signatur .......
~.~ .~2J1~
Print Name
,- S-" Oc
Date
/" " . JWR.eIIN" . ,'_
Jeffer( ) Westside Residents for Healthy Neigll )iloods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action,. to temporarily prohibit zone changes fromR-1 to R:'2 in areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated -uedlum Density Residential-
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Print Name
Address
l5"3B~~ 9 ,.~
/ ~
t
; !14!tJIJ . \At \9 \...o..\J.:)r~ Gl740 \
.; . ,.' ,.. '.; '.. '.1' . ',' t
,~ Iii .oc. w~ ~ ,'::~,~,.h~!4 ~ TAIVU'-''''~I
/)
Ib
"
5~
~(f;......._..
...> m,,'-'erer's'Sign~
~.~~(JfIt
C'nnt- Name'
~.. /~~
Date
~/Jw
Is-
11-
f {
! (p
", JWReHN
Jetfer; ,1 Westside Residents for Healthy Neiglt Jhoods
We request City . Council. adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
.dion, to temporarily prohibit zone d1angesfromR..1 to R~2 in areas of the
Jeferson neighborhood recently redesignated -Medium Density Residential-
and to remain In efect until. standards to protect the neighbOrhood's
character are adopted.
Date
. Si ature
Print Name
Address
Ik~qi~ _~'fJA-e(..f: ?lA~".....
f . Gathere. .'8 . .... gnature Print ~
" I PC r:x.... P
1'(
1<'
~at~ ~~
f~
" JWReHN
Je1l'er~ JWestsidel.eaidents for Healthy Neil' l'hoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take oller appropriate
action,totemPOrarily prohibit lOnechangea. torn R.1to R.2inareal of the
Jeffe"on. neighborhOOdrecenIYred.igna...MediumD..iWR.......r
and to remain In effect unl'.st8ndards to protect the neilhborhOOd's
character are adopted.
Date
Si......ature
Print Name
Address
5. , C).
")S91 Llt':e?I~... s+
'..
Jb~K~~
therer's Signature
~.......................K:4ce~
Print Name
k / IV Col,N
~
.$
, ~ ;
Jefferson Westside ~esideDts for Healthy Neighborhoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R-1 to R-2' in areas of the
Jefferson neighborhOod recently redesignated "Medium Density Residential-
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Print Name' .
~~,~/o" .
~ 1.ta1~
Cflltt-P
15'
~.
.--.-~therer' St. ature
Address
I.s/~ c:;J,lltl "J--kn ~
Ifo k'./.sTKk.
If" w /5~
l~ ~,
IS
153'1 jt',
\5~ ~~rf.,
\~~~ C~~\ <;1,
f 1b~ GkCtrn~ <i?J.
I ere( t;"' Ctl Mtvff ~
llt3'~I-\uVl&
I~~~\'\ro ~~
t-li-06
Date
//. ~:
ru/
JWReHN .
Jetferi j Westlide Residents for Healthy Neigi! 'Jrhoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate '
adion, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R-1 to R-2lnareas of the
, Jefferson neighborhOOdFeCently redesignated -Medium Density Resldentiar
and to remain in effect until standards to protect"e neighborhood's
character are adopted. ,
/5
Print Name
'$
ISuO {AaYJ1P/~h; 5l-. '11 0
Ib---ro ~. 4
I S-~T (t-to-'( I\tJ -hYl st.
J" ItvAJt..o 6&tkJ <,
, ~~tt-Z-
. 1st. 'f 4Ar~f~ S 1-"
.:JUve~ Bu aKlfY ,
1~1 ~v_~j+o~ ~
'55 V ("'~v~/~ .ct.
I 51'1 CIt~ rtf ,-/{un s1 I
ItJlnJ u.'
Print N.................
~1d.4
Date
CtfHtLtJ
IS
/'\ JWRelIN' . ,
JeffG Jh Westside Residents for HeaItIly Neii Alrhoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium. or take other appropriate
action. to temporarily prohibit ZOne changes from R-1 to R-2 In areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated -Medium Density Residential-
and to remain in effect unIiI.standards to protect the neighborhood's
. character are $dopted.
~..
,Date
PriJlt Name
~ll: Mtft1,e!
ft'
D
o
l CM.<>",~.,..~
I ~ 3 "V. 'BA~.e.
\l~~ b I '\Jl.. S T '
7
~
C f(!t1t,J
17
lb., /'
) ,') A
btk~1"IJt(/
Print Name
6
/'~
JWReHN ",....
Jeffei Ii We$tSide Resideats for RealtIty Neil hrhoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes frOm R-1 to R..2 In areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated "Medium DenslyResldenUal-
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Date
Print Name
Address
· W4#rIM~ 17'fIO~,~
o
..., DOC.,.
,7r;0 OlA:v~
Lbo t,. , ~""
(i:JS~w.
C,S-'J-w. 8/(~~, 4J
. 3'" 7D JJ;'J ~r; . Sf,
.~
"-,, ... ., f ~ "" ,
AJ~~ja NWt,\\
\t.tl ~. 1'11'"' ~
. "'J'\t... '"
'15 w. .11' /lNt- ~
I 0'1- \.J. I "f'~ Ave .
. 0 f., t(/E
/1
I~
r J J JCtIDJ)
DA It? De4- fOQ
Print . Name
.b W ".
/51,7 cAl.rnelf". Sf
<%:~4
D'ate
/(;:~
,/' . 1WReHN
J" ,n WestsideRe$dents for Healthy Neil Jorhoods.
> We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit lonechangea from R..1 to R-2 In areas of the
Jefferson neigbborhoodrecently redesignated -Medium Density ReSidential.
and to. remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted:
, Print 'Name,
(J
9~
~~m((Mn~
..i .therer's Signatl.lre
()I-lu(7
1. (tVc:.. ot../f)
1<:7
li~am~(Jt1!J 7-t~: t
lto
.JWReHN / .
Je1ffi In Westside Residents for Healthy Neil. hrhoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium. or take other appropriate
. action, to temporarily prohlbit.zone changes from R..1to R..2 in. areas oflhe
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated "Medium DenslrResidential.
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Date
Si ature
Print Name
Address
"'~ ~ ~tk
.,
o 7~ v ,e (, ~
o
~.
mtl:fl',(J a, 51 (S- 7' 11-L/ J1!h1 J9U t
f>16 ~-~(;fJYb, 97Y" r
L
Ir 3.30{,/ ocr ~-/t.-.
(( '; 'J 6c. t' vr:.:
~,f~
Gatherer's Signawre
#~~J4-..~.~~
nnt Name
/-;;"'-0 {,
Date
OL./v€
t-~,tf.jV(, ~
[' r~
\ l, .
" JWlleHN , _'
J. -)1 Westside Residents. for Healthy NeiL 1orhoods
-- We request City Council adopt a moratorium, or take other appropriate-
action,' ' ,to temporarily prohibit zone 'changes from R-1 to R-2 in areas of the
Jefferson neighborJ1oodrecently redesignated -Medium Density Residentiaf
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's -
character are adopted.
. Date
Print Name
#'{,'i(
'')Lof-l t",
Wo (,), {Tl , ~l.
t Lt(, O~ ,71
l(" "tv 17-ft.
~,,'~
, Print Name
Date
/7
Ib
rl
~,
IWReHN J
Jefferson Westside Residents for Healthy Neighborhoods. .
We request. City Council adopt a moratoriu~, or take other appropriate.
. action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from R-1 to- R-2 in areas of the .
Jefferson neighborhOOd recently redesignated -Medium Density Residential" ..
. and to remain in effect untilltandards to protect the neighborhood's
. character are adopted.
Date
Si ture
Print Name
Address
5
e.. LbA DR.. S' LvO
~
\.j~tPIA{)STe~
Print Name
qf~~
Date
(/
~~')
1WR.eBN
. JeIei Ai Westside Residents for Healthy Neil ..brhoods'
We request City Council adopt a moratorium, .. take other appropriate'
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes from. R-1 to R-2 in aress of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated -Medium Density Residential"
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
Character are adopted.
Date
. ..
6f( Ob
. ,..'t. 0(,
1'/57 1AJ..I.~~.
I' ,
I {l)it f.(j.. IO~
\<t&o\JJ. tm4~~
Print Name
Address
5"
vtL
124'
t:{(1, *(~*-
. I <f6, r/)). ~f1 .
,,-J.
J1 ~G1~
te,l/~ S GI Vii
1,~-e L\ 1Z"et\Q(!.,lA
otft
II
t3!' II.,.".. ~~.
'11.\
~S'Lpol k
QC2. .(i \\L
Print Name
I;;
..
. n17D_t:nT ,
, J HY.Na'll'" )
Jefferson Westside Residents for Healthy Neighborhoods
We request City Council adopt a moratorium. or take other appropriate
action, to temporarily prohibit zone changes . from R-1 to R-2 In areas of the
Jefferson neighborhood recently redesignated "Medium Density Residential"
and to remain in effect until standards to protect the neighborhood's
character are adopted.
Print Name
Address
.;1fI"""
l\JT c
Ya., /fA ~ G-oltld,~
.:::f<f> ~~ ~. S'(~I" c...
· ~F L.oR~uJ
Jo ~ b~.....:....
13' -r;:.. .(br' i'7 +0 ~
'/f,fJ,
JD
a v tel {f/~)r:J
ir~.~~
Print Name
/'13'
133 A(
&./g, of;
Date
/~.-.....,
/ c-:?
JEFFERS.ONIFAR WEST REFINEMENT PLAN
AREA 15 POLICY AMENDMENT
BACKGROUND
U[J-7/6(p
INTRODUCTION
On August 16, 2006 and September 11, 2006, City Council adopted two motions
intended to "pause and mitigate [the) negative effect" 1 of inappropriate infill that could
occur in Area 15 of the JeffersonlFar West Refinement Plan due to up-zonings to R-2.
Council took a two-pronged approach to the solution. In their August 16 motion, Council
directed the City Manager to initiate a code interpretation of the Jefferson/Far West
(JIFW) Refinement Plan's Area 15 policy, which is incorporated into the Land Use Code
at Be 9.9580(17).2
In their September 11 motion, Council directed staff to "initiate amendment of the Metro
Plan, the JeffersonIFar West Refmement Plan and the Land Use Code to limit the subject
area to Low Densit)T Residential development." Onc,e implemented., these amendments
will prevent upzonings from R-l to R-2, thus fulfilling Council's intent to "pause"
inappropriate intill allowed under R-2 zone development standards. 3
The Jefferson Wests ide Neighbors (JWN) is the City-chartered neighborhood association
that encompasses Area 15, and over 200 residents of the neighborhood association havre
been involved in this issue through JWN meetings, signing petitions, or other activities.
The JWN general membership has adopted a formal motion supporting the Council-
initiated plan and code amendments.
In this documellt, the JWN co-chairs present additional background information related to
Area 15.
DISCUSSION
Several factors bear on the proposed Area 15 policy amendments, including:
· City Council's intent in directillg that these plan and code amendments be initiated
· Incompatibility and. negative impacts of potential R-2 developtnent 011 Area 15
· The history and intent of the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan policy for Area 15
· Statements by Jefferson Area Neighbors lea,ders and residents
· Land use regulations in effect when the JIFW Refinement Plan was created and adopted
· Recent motions adopted by the JWN expressing the neighborhood association's intent
for the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan"s Area 15 polic)T
In the following sections, \ve cov~er all these areas.
I Council tnotion adopted July 24, 2006.
2 Although Council's intent was to mitigate the negative effects of inappropriate R-2development in Area
14, the Senior Planner responsible for this dec.ision.regrettably void.ed ail limits 011 R-2 developtnent,
includ.ing maximum density and building design. This action exacerbated the probleln, rather than
mitigated it.
3 Council also indicated the amendments should Hsunset" on July 1, 2008.
City Council's intent in initiating plan and code amendments
It's important to recognize that Council approved a specific directive to "limit the subject
area to Low DensityT Residential developmenf~ asa short-tenn measure to prevent potential
R-2 development that may otherwise oc-cur in this area from 'destabilizing the neighborhood
and degrading its character.
Not onI)T did Council pro'vide explicit dire,ction for how this temporary protection was to
be accomplished, the)T also identified these amendments as a "high priority.~'
While Council's direction provides sufficient basis for the Planning Comnlission to
approve the proposed amendments, it may also be helpful for Commissioners who aren't
familiar with the subject area to kriow something of its nature and a bit of the historical
context of the neighborhood residents' vision for the area, as reflected in the
JeffersonlF.ar West Refinement Plan's Area 15 policy.
But first, vve present a brief explanation of the nature of the threat to this area that
motivated Council to initiate a high-priority response.
lncompatibilit)-r and negative impacts of potential R-2 development on Area 15
Area 15 was originall)r developed as a predominantly single-family neighborhood in tIle
early 1910-1930 period; and for ov"er 80 years the area has remained an attractive, healthy
neighborhood of mostly one,... to one-and-a-half story, detac,hed homes. Houses are built
fairly close to one another and have a strong street orientation and nlodest, fairly private
back yards. Man)' blocks are bisected by undeveloped alleys, which are used mainly for
service access, rather than as the primary dwelling access (which is from the street).
Almost all lots in the area are zoned R_14, which is Eugene's low-density, generally
sin.gle-family zone; and alnlost all lots are developed with only a single d\velling.
Under current R-2 density standards, nlan)l of tIle lots in this area would allow' four to six
d\velling units. Under R-2 development standards, structures c,an be three (or more)
stories tall \\lith. 30 fo.ot (or higher) 'vertical walls looming ~rithin five feet of an adjoining
neighbor's backyard or within ten feet of an adjoining home. R-2 multi-unit development
requires on...site parking and vehicle circulation areas, which means substantial loss of
open space and permeable and arable surface area, as well as significant noise and
exhaust impacts from the average ten trips per household per day.
The negative impacts of incompatible R-2 development have been well documented in a.
residential area of tIle J\\'N that is verv similar in character to Area 15 of the Jefferson
.;
neighborhood, exce,pt that the study area has been zoned R-2 sinc,e the 1930s. As part o.f
theODOT-funded "Chanlbers Re'visited" study, residellts catalogued concrete impacts of
inc,ompatible infill and identified the nature and level of these impacts on all lots in a
section of the J\\'N referred. to as th.e "East Traditional Neighborhood." (TIle ETN area is
identifie,d in the Chambers Special Area Zone as the S...CIR-2 subarea). In surmnar)l, the
data sho\ved that the tyrpe of intill being built in this type of neighborhood ul1der R-2
4 There are approxiluately 255 lots in Area 15. Of these, approxiInately 245 (96~/o) are zoned R.-l.
2
standards contributed only marginally to increased density while having substantial
destabilizing effects on the neighborhood. 5
Independent assessment by Planning staff and consultants on the "Chambers Revisited"
project team confirmed residents' analysis. In their final draft report (June 28, 2005), the
senior planner in charge of the project and two private consultants stated: "The currently
allowed [R-2] densities effectively pennit a level of intensification that will, over time,
fundamentally change the character of the [ETN] neighborhood.
Because Area 15 has a highly similar grid street pattern, lot configuration, and single-
family development pattern as the ETN, the conclusions reached by residents, staff, and
. consultants applies to Area IS, as well- R-2 development will fundamentally change the
character of the neighborhood and evidence strongly suggests this change will occur
through inexorable degradation and destabilization of the area.
Allowing such development to occur in Area 1 5 would conflict with the refinement plan
policy's explicit intent to mailltain the cllaracter of tIle area.6 ,
While the Jefferson/Far West Refmement Plan envisions selective, carefully controlled
development projects in Area 15, including projects that may exceed R-l's one- and t\VO-
dwelling-per-lot limit, the November IS, 2006 code interpretation of the Area 15 policy
(file CI 06-13) has thrown the entire area wide open to unlimitedR-2 development/ This
staff action has confIrmed re,sidents' fears that staff vvill simpl)! ignore the refinement
plan's policy to "maintain the character of the neighborhood" when R-2 zone change
applications are re\llewed.
And thus, staff s action has gi'ven additional inlpetus and urgency to Council's directi\re
that plan and code amendments to provide protection of this area should be implemented
as a "high priorit~y."
History and intent of the JeffersonlFar West Refinement Plan Area 15 policy
The Jefferson/F ar West Refinement Plan was \vritten during 1980 to 1982 by a planning
team consisting of eight residents appointed by the two encompassing neighborhood
associations (Jefferson Area Neighbors and Far West Neighborhood Association) and
five representatives of the area business and religious community, Lane County
Fairgrounds and Ida Patterson Community School. The final draft of the refinement plan
was complete,d in June, 1982. The plan \\-'as adopted. by City Council on Jalluary 12, 1983.
Thus, the text of the plan should be interpreted in the context of land use policies and
code in effect d.uring this period. (In this docu.m.ellt, we use "1983-era" as a shorthand for
this period.)
5 These findings are available in the "Chambers Revisited Neighbors' Report," which is part of the City
Council public hearing record on the. Chalubers Special Area Zone and available on-line at
cnrneighbors~org.
6 Such development \vould also conflict \vith the Metro Plan policy A.25 requirelnent to "increase the
stability and quality of older residen.tial neighborhoods" and Eugene's Gro\vthf\fanagement Policy #6 to
"maintain the character and livability of individual neighborhoods.'~
7 Staff's interpretation both misreads the plain language of the Area 15 policy and entirely ignores other
parts of the Jefferson/Far West refmenlentPlan that clarify the policy, the historical context in which the
policy \vas \vritten, statements by members of the J/F\V plarnling team, and rn.otionsby the JWN
membership stating the intended meaning of the policy. On November 21, the J\\r.N .Executive Board voted
unanitnously to appeal this decision.
3
At the time the J/FW Refinement Plan was adopted, Area 15 was encompassed by the
Jefferson Area Neighbors (JAN).neighborhood association. A few years ago, Jefferson
Area Neighbors merged with the Westside Neighborhood Quality Project (WNQP) to
form the Jefferson Westside Neighbors, which is now the City-chartered neighborhood .
associ(~.tion that encompasses Area 15.
As the JIFW Refinement Plan "Findings" for Area 15 note, this area was (an.d still
remains) primarily single-family, with fift; percent of the residential units owner-
oc.cupied at the time the plan was written. O\vner occupancy in this area was higher than
the overall rate for Eugene at the time (46%), and over three times higher than the rate for
the Jefferson neighborhood as a whole (16%). Thl.ls, this area was a stable, single-family
neighborhood at the time the JIFW Refinement Plan policy covering the area was written.
Taking an even longer term view, Area 15 has been a healthy, sin.gle;-family
neighborhood for over eighty years.
The historical and contemporary data also sh.ows the area has maintained a stable, evenly
balanced ratio of owner-oc<cupied and rental properties for o"'er two decades.
A.thorough re.ading of the entire JIFW RefInement Plan, as well as the Refinenlent Plan
Appendix, presents a clear picture of how the planning team 'viewed the future of Area
15. For example, the planning team. presellted the following as one of the plans
"Highlights" (see page facing Table of Contents):
ftlmproving rehabilitable structures and preserving sound residential areas is afl
important component of the plan. H
Area 15 was one of the healthier sections of the Jefferson neighborhood. during a period
where many areas of the older, close-in neighborhoods were in decline, and this area
would unquestionabl)T have been one of the "sound residential" areas the plan sought to
preserv"e.
The planning team also appeared to be "very aware of the problems caused by unmanaged,
higher-density development, and the plan's "Land Use Element - Findings" section (page
5) cites a research study conducted \vhile the plan was being created. One of the study's
conclusions\vas:
He. Lot-by-lot develop111ent in areas }vith standard single-famil}' parcels is
unworkable at higher densities. "
The "Findings" for Area 15 noted tIle area had primarily stan.dard~ sillg1e-family parcels;
and consequentl)t Area 15 policy was carefully crafted to prevent "unworkable" higher
density d.evelopment. Area 15 policy was intended to allow only lilnited~ well-planned
and designed de\'eloplnent that in specific situations ,;vould permit more than the single
d\\relling unit the R-I zone allovled on non-comer lots.9 The planning team ,vas also
careful to explicitly" illclude the requirement that development in. Area 15 that exceeded
R-l density limits lnllst "maintain the character of the area."
The planning tealn cleart)' desired that "block. planning~' would pro\ride a neVi \vay to
"allow land use cllanges to oc.cur with the joint appro"val of property O\\111erS and
residents, the neighborhood group, a,nd the City" (J/FW Refinement Plan, "Highlights of
the Plan'" page facing Table of Contents). Note in particular, the specific reference to
8 Cu;re.ntly, approxinlately 124 (or 49~~) of the 255 lots in Area 15 are Q\vner occupied.
9 R-l allovvs duplexes on comer lots.
4
approval by the neighborhood group, indicating that residents and their neighborhood
association should be assigned a pivotal role in deciding how their own neighborhood
would develop over time.
The example of a block plan included in the Refmement Plan Appendix provides an
example of what the planning team envisioned - low-intensity development that includes
carefully sited, small-scale apartments amongst single-family homes with extensive
greenspace, for community orchards and gardens.
In a recent conversation with one of the JWN co-chairs, Ms. Mary Bentsen who lives at
950 W. 16th Ave., who was one of the Jefferson residents on the JIFW planning team,
confirmed this sense of modest increases in allowable density, on the scale of "granny
cottage" additions. In her comments, Ms. Bentsen was quite adamant that currently
allowed R-2 development, for example, the addition of a ~uplex or larger multi-family
unit in the back of an existing house, was not intended or desired by the JIFW planning
team.
Subsequent statements by~ Jefferson Area Neighbors leaders and residents
Block planning never materialized; and "site review", which has been ineffectually
applied in the past, has not provided the kind of control over development the JIFW
planning team intended. As a result, residents and the neighborhood association have
found themselves in repeated battles to prevent development in the area that is
inconsistent with the plan's intent and which degrades and destabilizes the neighborhood.
Looking at the re:cord for some of the land use actions in theare,a pro'vides additional
historical reference points for understanding how the JIFW planning team, the
neighborhood association, and neighborhood residents meant for the plan to be applied.
A good example oc,curred in late 1998'when numerous residents alld the neigh"borhood
association ad,a,mantly opposed the "Iverson" R-2/SR zone change applic"ation (file
Z 98-14).
As part of this opposition, the cOlubined executive boards of the Jefferson,Area
Neighbors and the \\Testside Neighborhood Qu,ality Project neighborhood associations
submitted a letter on December 16, 1998 to the hearings official. The n,eighborhood
leaders stated that "where and how to increase density within our neighborhoods is too
important to be made on a parcel by parcel basis ... We are opposed to piecemeal
increases in density ...." This statement ec,hoes the "Findings" of the J IF\\' Refinel11ent
Plan that "Lot-by-Iotdevelopment in areas with standard single-family parcels is
unworkable at higher densities."
Even more specific. to th:e.Area 15 1101icy, the neigh,borhood leaders testified.: ~'the
properties [sic] R-1 Low Density Residential. zone classification ... is in keeping with the
Low to Medium Density designation in the adopted neighborhood refinement plan. ... It
also is in keelJing 14Jith q. tile intent oj~the drafters q[the neighborhood refinement plarl."
Thus, in their 1998 letter ,both neighborhood association boards make clear "R -1" zoning
was considered consistent ",rith "lo\v- to m,ediulu density," and tllat Upzol1ing to R-2 ,vas
not intended to be allowed on every site in Area 15 and was not meant to be permitted
without more control than provided by site review, as site review was being used in this
and pre\tiousR-2/SR upzonings.
OIle of th,e signatories of the 1998 letter \vasMr. Jon Belcher \\rho had been all alternate
5
member of the Jefferson/Far West Planning Team that created the refin.ement plan and.
who was a JAN co-chair at the time the letter was submitted. .Mr. Belcher has also
recently publishe.d a letter reaffirming that "site review has proved inadequate to pre'vent
inappropriate development" in this area. (JWN Neighborhood News, May 2006, available
on-line at j,;vneugene.org.)
Land use regulations in effect ",,'hen the JeffersonlFar West Refinement Plan was
created and adopted <
The "low- to medium-density" term is a critical element of the Area 15 policy, yet the
term is not defined in the J/FW Refinement Plan or any related document. This land use
category appears in a.sequence of residential categories that are listed in the follo\ving
order on the J/FW Refinement Plan Land Use Diagram (page 18):
o Low Densit)T Residential
o Low-Medium Density Residential
o Medium Density Residential
o .High Density Residential
All of Area 15.is designated as "Lo\v-Mediufil Densit:y" on the J/FW Refinement Plan
Land Use Diagram.
The "Low-Medium Densit)r" category is listed betweell the "Low Density" and "Medium
Density" categories, and thus Area 15's designatioll as "Low-Medium Density" indicates
development density for this area was intended to fall some\;vhere in the middle of the
two ranges on either side.
At the time the J/F\\7 Refinement Plan ",tas developed and approved, the R-2 zone
implemented the medium density range of residential development, alld the policy for
Area 15 explicitly prov~ided for con(iitional up-zoning to R - 2,10 although only> when there
was also an associated site revrie\v (/SR) ov'erlay wllose purpose can be understood from
the policy's other requiremellt as intended to maintaill the character of the area.
Thus, the most rele\ratlt referenc.e point for the undefined. terms "Lo\\l-Medium Density"
and "low- to medium-density" is the maxilnum densit), allowed by R-2 zoning in effect
during 1980-1982 \\Then the J/FWRefinement Plan \vas developed. Tllisvalue establishes
an upper limit to the "Lo\v-Medium Density" categor)T'S range.
On May 24, 1982, less thall a mOllth before the J/FW planning tealndeli'Tered tlleirfinal
draft of the refinement plan, Cit)t Council adopted Ordinance 18971 amending section
9.546 of the zoning code to re-quire a minimum of2,650 square feet per d,velling u-nit in
the R.-2 zone. This same R-2 standard was in effect ,vhen Cit), Council formally ad.opted
the J/FW Refinement Plan in January 1983 and for many )rearsafterwards.
Mathelnatically, this is approximately 16.4 dwelling units per net ac-re (dulna), but it is
essential toun.de;rstand th.at the zoning code irl1983 had nothing resel11bling ctlrrent
zorling code's Hround up " provision, which greatly' inflates the e-ffective allowable
densit~y, especially on small parcels, suell as those in Area 1.5. For example, under theR-2
10 Notably, the Area 15 policy did not a1l0\V upzoning to R... 3 or R -4.
6
standard in effect at that time, a lot with 5,290 square feet could have only a single
dwelling; whereas, today that same lot could have four units. I I
The following table provides a chart for the number of allowable units for lot sizes found
in Area 1512 as of the date the JIFW Refinement Plan was adopted.
Lot size Allo'\vable Number of
dwelling units lots in Area 15
Less thaIl 2~650 s.f. None (unless 7
already exists)
2,650 s.f. to 5,299 s.f. 1 67
5,300 s.f. to 7,949 s.f. 2 99
7,950 s.f. to 10,599 s.f. 3 74
10,600 s.f. to 13,249 4 4
13,250 s.f. or more 5+ 1
Total 252
The JIFW planning team certainly intended that a policy allowing limited upzonings to
R"2 in Area 15 would not allow development on any of those up zoned properties to
exceed the R"2 maximum at that time. Even at maximum R"2 development allowed in
1983 (and some years later), approximately 70 perc.ent of lots ill Area 15 would linlit
development to no more than two units. This level of development would be consistent
with the limited intensification the planning team envisioned for this single-family area
and is a level of intensification thatman)'r residentsha\re supported from the era vvhen the
refinetnent plan \vas develo,ped right through to th.e. present
The "low- to medium-density" designation does not imply any minimum required density
because the JIFW Refinement Plan explicitly uses aspirational, rather than proscriptive,
language in the text: "explore methods to encourage an increase in residential density."
The planning team clearly had no intention of requiring densification over the prevalent
~ingle-fanlily pattern. This was specifically confirnled b:y the 1998 letter froll1 tIle J AN
and \\TNQP boards.
As explained above, prior to 1983 and for some years afterwards, all density standards
were applied without the current zoning code's "round up" provision. Consequently, you
cannot simply consider the maximum density of 16.44 du/na allowed by the 1983-era R-2
zone as equivalellt to 16.44 du/l1a under toda)'r's R-2 zone calculatioIls. A conversion is
l1ecessary to COlnpare "apples to apples."
11 The current code's "round up" provision has an enonnous impact on allowable density in current k-2
zones. Witbout the "round up" provision., the same 5,290 s.f. lot could be developed at 24.7 dulna under
today's R-2 nlaxirnum density. But the Hround up" provision allovvs the lot to be developed at 32.9 du/na-
a 25 percent increase in effective density. Note that because of the "round up" provision, almost aU R-2 lots
in the Jefferson and Westside neighborhoods allow development density that actually falls in the high-
density range, i.e., over 28.56 du/na. This despite the R,-2 zone's stated purpose to implenlent the Metro
Plan ~'Mediunl Density" range.
12 Does not include the lots on which O'Hare School and the Lighthouse Temple are located.
7
Although there's no single formula to' convert dulna values applied without "round up" to
equivalent dulna values applied with "round up," it's quite straightfornrard to find the
equivalency for a specific set of lots, such as those in Area 15.
The basic approach. we took was to create a spreadsheet with in.dividuallotareas for the
252 lots in Area 15, exc.luding the O'Hare school and Lighthouse Temple lots. We then
applied both "no round up" and "round up" formulas with varying dulna.values to this set
of lots and c.alculated the total number of dwelling units allowed~ We also tabulated
comparisons bet\veen various pairs of "no round up" and "round up" values to determine
how many of the 252 lots would allo\\l a different number of d",,relling units under the
densities being compared.
The following table sho-w~s the values that produce the closest equivalent results under
"no round IIp'' and "round up" calculations.I3
1983-era R-2
min. lot area per dl\relling
NO round u
2,650 s.f:
1983-eradu/na
NO round up
16.44
Equivalent du/ns
WITH current round
u calculation
9.7
Two examples illustrate the results of applying equiv~alent 1983-era and current
maximum densities from the table abo\'e.
1 983-era 9.7'du/na
Lot size 16.44 du./na WITH current
Square feet NO round up round up calculation
(acres) Allowable dwelling units Allowable dwelling units
7,500 s.f. 2 2
(0. 2066 acre)
5,000 s.f. 1 2
(0. 1 148 acre)
First, <;onsider a 7,500 s.f. (0.2066 acre) lot. For tIlis lot size~ as for most of the lots in
Area 15, the correspon.dence is exact.
Next, consider a 5,000 s.f. (0.1148 acre) lot. In this case, a density of9.1 dulna under
current R-2 calculations will allo\v one more unit than a. 1 983-era density of 16.44 du/na
allowed. For this specific lot size, the equiv'alent density' under the current calculation
should 'be lower than 9.7 du/lla. There were VCT)l fe\v such cases alTIOng the 252 lots that
were analyzed~
It may, seem surprising that the equivalent dulna value u.nder current R-2 zOlling rules
(9.7) is so much lo\ver than thecon<<esponding 'valu.e u.nd.er the rules in effect in the 1983
era (16.44). But this is due to the l11aJor effect that "rounding up" has on allowable
density for small- tomediunl-sized lotS.14
13 The Excel spreadsheets \\'e used are available by request
14 The increase in density caused by addin.g the "round up" provision to the code is the major reason the
R-2 zone has become in. effect, a high-density zone \vhen a.pplied to neighborhoods \-vith lots in the 5,000 to
12,000 square toot range. The aggregate densi.ty allo\ved in Area. 15 under current R.-21D.aximum density
linlits is over 31 du/na- ,veIl above the mini nl um defined in the Metro Plan "High Density Residential'')
8
The equivalence table above can be used to better understand the intent of the current
Area 15 policy by. considering the hypothetical question:
If the intent of the JIFW planning team was to allow development on selected lots
in the "low- to medium-density" area to approach the maximum number of units
allowed by the R-2 zone in 1982~ what maximum density limit would we need to
set under current zoning code?
The answer is 9. 7 du/na.
Another way to understand the context in which the Area 15 policy was developed is that
the JIFW Planning Team was formulating the policy at a time when the R-2 zone allowed
roughly a third the density allowed under current R-2 standards.
The tripling ofR-2 maximum density~ over the last two decades is the primary reason tllat
development allowed under R-2 is so incompatible and destabilizing for established
single-family resi.dential areas, such as Area 15.
Jefferson Westside Neighbors motion regarding "Io"r- to medium-density"
As mentioned earlier, the J/FW Refinement Plan embodies the principle that residents
and their neighborhood association should have a pivotal role in deciding how their own
neighborhood would develop over time. Consistent \vith this perspective, the JWN has
actively deliberated on the intent of the Area 15 policy.
On September 12, 2006, the JWNunanimousl)T (33-0) adopted the following motion
Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) intends that the JefferSOJ1/Far West
Refinement Plan policy for "Jefferson residential area #15" (on pages 27~28), ,,,hiell
states (in the first paragraph):
This area shall be recognized as a low- to medium-dellsit)J residential area.
TheCit)) shall explore methods of' encouragil'lg an increase in residerllial
densit)i }'et maintaining tlIe character of the area. Residential densities beyond
ten units per. acre shall be allolved, su~ject to an approved block plan or
rezoning to R-2 in conjunction with site review.
sh.all be applied \:v~itIl the following interpretation~ "Then appl.icable in the re'liew of
zone change applications alld other land use a,ctions:
· TIle "low- to medium-dep.sity" range shall ha\!e a maximum efl'ective density. less
than tile maximum R-2 density ill e.ffect on the date the JeffersolllFar West
Planning Team developed the policy for Area # 15, specifically as of Jul)! 1, 1982
or earlier..
Th.e determination. of the equivalent maxinlum density under current regulations
shall take illto acc()unt the effect of the "round. up" provisioll that is part of c.urrent
code such that the equi\Talent\ralue for current maximum densitjr prodllcesas close
as possible tIle same results tllat would have been produced .by th.e "round do\vn"
provision in effect ill 1982.
range. The substantial effect of the "round up'~ provision is an aspect of current nlaxiInum density standard.s
that may not be fully a.ppreciated by some City staff and officials.
9
This motion affirms that the neighborhood association encompassing the area intends the
Area 15 policy be interpreted as has been suggested in the disc.ussionabove.
The Area 15 policy requirement for "maintaining the character of the area."
In addition to setting a density range, the Area 15 policy also imposes a key requirement
that any action which allows an increase in. residential density must maintain the
character of the area.
This requirement is stated in the second sentence of the Area 15 policy's first paragraph:
This area sJ1all be recogfJized as a . low- to medium-density residential area. The
eit}' shall explore methods of encouraging an increase in residential density' m .
maintaining the character of the. area. Residential densities be)lond ten tin its per
acre shall be all(l14/ed, subject to al1 approved block plan or rezoning to R-2 in
conJ.lJnction 11lith site revielv.
Note this sentenc.e presents the encouragement (but not requirement) for development
that will be more dense than the existing single-family, R-I de"velopment; and at the same
time establishes the fundamental constraint on denser development, I.e., that it maintains
the character of the neighborhood.
The final sentence in the above section of Area 15 policy covers block planning and
upzoning as mecha,nisms to allow increased density, but the policy allo\vs these
mechanisms only as long as they comply with the policy requirement that the resulting
de\'elopment maintains the character of the neighborhood.
Thus, not any block .plan is acceptable for more dense de,velopment, nor is just any set of
site revievv criteria ac,ceptable as sufficient for a rezonin.g to R-2. Only' a block plan or site
revie\v c,riteria that can be clearly den1.onstrated to maintain the character of the area
would c,omply \vith the Area 15 policy.
Again, looking at the o\rerall picture presented by the J/FW Refinem.ent Plan and
Appendix, and from extensive resident c,omments and neighborhood association actions
over the ~years, the intent of the Area 15 policy to maintain the character of the area can
only be interpreted as requiring careful siting, limited increase in density, and compatible
scale of selected projects thatare allo\ved to be developed under any upzoning to R-2~ As
mentiolled earlier, the extensi\re discussioll alld example ofbloc.k. planning in the JIF\\7
Refin.eJnent Plan Appendix provides a good picture of what tIle planning team
envisioned.
.
10
JWN motion regarding "maintaining the character of the area"
Residents and the neighborhood association have also considered tllis essential element
of the Area 15 policy, and on March 14, 2006, the JWN unanimously (48-0) adopted the
following motion:
Jefferson Westside Neighbors intends that the Jefferson/Far West Refinement Plan
policy for "Jefferson residential area #15" (on pages 27-28), which states (in the first
paragraph):
This area shall be recognized as a 10"".'- to mediul1l-densit}' residential area. The
City shall explore methods of encouraging an increase in residential density yet
maintaining the character of the. area. Residential densities beyond ten units per
acre shall be allol1Jed, subject to an approved block plan or rezoning to R-2 in
conjunction with . site review.
shall be applied with the following interpretations, when applicable in the revIew of zone
change applications and other land use actions:
a. "the character of the area" sllalllneal1 a set of concrete, nleasurable
characteristics that have been identified through. a public process as fundamental
elenlents of the existing residential development within the area covered by this
policy. These characteristics shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Mass and scale, both for main structures and secondary stnlctures
ii. Setbacks from property lines and adjacent structures, at grade, as \vell as
above grade
iiL Lot co"erage b)T strtlctures and vehicle use areas (e.g., dri~ve\va)(s and
parking)
i'v. lntensity of devel.opnlent (Le;., d\vellin.g units per lot)
b. "ten units per acre" shall nlea,n: "ten dwel.lil1g units per net acre".
c. "rezoning to R-2 in conjunction ",rith site re,riew'~ shall. nlean:
1. An ISR (site review) overlay zone is required for (In}~ lot that is rezonedto R-2.
11. The /SR overlay zone requirements shall include. clear and objective
standards to assure that any proposed developnlent of the lot maintains the
character of the are.a, ullder the interpretation in section (a) of this motion.
From th.e t\\IO J\\lN motions, the history of the J/FW Refinenlcnt Plan, and testimony
from residents alld neigh.borhood association leaders during the inter\Tenillg years, it
should be clear th.at residents haveal\va)Ts intended Area 15 to h.av~e lilnited al1d carefully
controlled intensification.
However, as mentioned earlier, the recent code interpretation ignores the plain intent of
the refinementplal1 and the desires of area residents alld the neighborhood association
a.nd st.ates tllere.are sinlply no lilnitson R-2 d.e'velopment in this area.
Thus, the need arises for prompt acti()n to il11plement COll.neil's directive to prevent the
kind of destructi\te de'velopnlellt this intel1Jretation would allo\v.
11
Submitted on behalf of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors
November 27, 2006
p~ 1 tJ=r
Paul T. Conte, Co-c.h,air
~e~tUU-
Rene Kane, Co-chair
12
Page I of 1
HARDING Terri L
From: Mary B. Barlow [thebabembb@hotmaH.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21,2006 7:55 AM
To: HARDING Terri L
Regarding l\1A 06-5, 10\ 06-3, CA 06-1
To tlIe Eugene City Planning Commissioners
I believe \ve can useprillciples as ,veIl as aesthetics and common sense to modify zoning laws in a
thoughtful" and effecti've vyay.
Oltf reigning philosopllY in Eugene is to encourage infillindo\;\lntown areas in order to provid.e
c.onvenient and affordable housing and a\roid. spra\vl. B)' spreading zoning modification across areas,
\\re can enhance dellsity and access \vitllout radically altering an)' Olle area. I propose makiIlg the
follo'Vving modifications for all r-l neighborhoods. in to~rn. Tbis \vilI give property o\vuers the
opportunity to meet demands for more hOtlSing convellient to and thus sU11porti\!c of do\vntown
enterprise~ \vithout creating neighborhoods of dramatically different, more segregated, feel.
Rather than introducing more large, multi-unit structures, could we not acllieve the saIne numbers by
e11couragitlg the addition of autonomous units detaclled froul existitlghouses? 'I'here are myriad alleys
in the area ullderconsideration, many already featuring rental units. Broadening allowances for bu.ilding
these single units \vould create a way to intensify ~ensity. L.ot size req'uirements c.ould be redllced to
allo\v subdivision for nevv single units. And for second U11its on existing lots, eliminating the need for
attaching to the original structure \vould create flexibility and enhance and preserve the nature of the
neighborhood as one of predon1inantly single family 11omes,\ivhether o\vner occ.upied or rellta1.
Strong and specific aesthetic rules co'uld also be applied in further support of keepil1g the feel of the
existing 11eighborhoods. I have a rental at 1375 W. 13th and llave been impressed 'Vvith the stalldards
regarding such issues as matching roof lines \vllich 11ave been instituted tllere.
It makes sense to reserve even l1i.gher densities for stretches 'Vvhere public transit routes already foster
access<< Two st.ory multi unit dVv~elHngs could lneId njcel)! to the exisitl1g neighborhood if they were
placed along bus routes. If\ve used zoning to favor to\\rn-house type fOfll11tlations in these areas rather
tl1an monolithic, flat-roofed complexes, I tllin.k \ve could satisfy ever)rbodyis needs.
In S110rt., tllere are ways to ltlvite integrated de\relopment across the R -1 range in E,ugene.
'r'hallk you for your consideration.
i\1.B. Barlo\v
'falk no\\/ to your Flotlnq.il contacts v-lith \\/inOQ\vs I.AveI\Jes.SCl)ger.
11/21/2{)06
Page I of2
HARDING Terri L
From: Nancy Nichols [nancyn@efn.org]
Sent: Monday 1 November 20, 2006 11 :32 AM
To: HARDING Terri L
Subject: PubHcComment
November 20, 2006
Re: M~A. 06-5, RA 06-3, CA 06-- 1
To: Eugen~ Cit~y Planning Conlmissioners
If Eugene is to have any hope of increasing ov'erall density and reducing sprawl, some of tIle
Jefferson/Far Vlest area currently designated as Mediuln Density Residential should. be retain.ed as
Medium Density Residential. tI'his can be done in a way that does not risk degrading t.he livabilit)l of a
stablc\vell maintained do\vntovvn neigh.borhood. If lots facing 13th, 18th, Jefferson and Oli'vecontinue
as mcditlm dellsity residential, additional density could be obtained \vithout compromising the character
of the neighborhood. Tl1ese streets have bus service, have SOIne Inultifamily d.e'velopment alread~y and
are thehest option for increase in density o'ver time. You tnight also consider" adding Lincoln as there is
existing n1ultifamily and cOlnlnercial development on I.'incoln .
It also seems reasonable to allo,\' for lot splits that create slnalllots suitable for sitlg1e homes evcf)!yvhere
in this neighborllood. I O\VTI a honle at.S66 W 17th on a lot that. is 42 feet \'vide by 60 feet. deep. This size
lot is adequate for the 1000 sq. ft.. honle there and shotlld be allo\ved. While the home is currently
rented~ I bought it with the tll0Ught that it is likely to be my filIal home. It is a block from a bus stol) and
is \vithin \valking distance of shopping, doctors, and the library. I 'understand that SOIne neighbors feel
Medium Density Zoning is ruining the character of the neig11borhood. Hovvever son1e increase ill density
should be allowed if Eugene is to meet overa.ll planning goals for eompact development. l~he city of
Eugene can encourage more. affordable housing and some increase in density by allowing the creation of
small. lots rather than by zoning for devrelopment of nll1ltifatnily d\veHings. l"he neigI1borIlood character
could be Inaintained \vith design restrictions on these sma.lllots and on the streets \\lhere Inedium density
is allo\ved.
Perllaps neither existing Medium Dellsity Residential nor l.;o\v I)ensity Residential zoning fits this area.
Could there be a ne\v category that incorporate.s the possibility for sn1all lotswith.Ollly one single family
honle allowed per lot? Cotdd ac,cessof)' unit regulations be cllanged so that peOl)le can create either
attached or detached ones to fit tlleir falUil)' situation, even on smaller lots? Could t.he Lo\v Density
I~esidential Zone lle modified to allo\v slnaller lots and flexibility in creating a.ccessory Ullits in all areas
zoned t~O\V DC11Sity?
'T~hank )!()u for your consideration of nlY conlrnents.
Sincerely,
11/20/2006
, Page 2 of2
Nanc)! Nichols
93849 Deadwood Creek Road
Deadwood, OR 97430
1 1 /1') f\ /1 f\t) C.
Page 2 of2
Nancy Nichols .
93849 Deadwood Creek Road
Deadwood; OR 97430'
11/20/2006
Page 1 of 1
HARDING TerriL
From.: BUI Seider[bseider@pivotarchitecture.com)
Sent: Sun~aYI November 19t 2006 5:00 PM
To: HARDING Terri l
Subject: Jefferson/Far West (MA 06-05, RA 06~31 CA 06-1)
Hello Terri - I live in the subject area for this Metro Plan Amendment and received the Jetter announcing the
December 5, 2006 Public Hearing.
I am trying to get some more information about the proposed changes and can't seem to find anything useful on
line.
The letter we received says that the staff report will be available free of charge on Tuesday! November 28,2006.
However the deadline for submitting written testimony to be included in the Planning Commission packet is
MondaYt November 27.
Is there some other place to get information on this proposal on Monday so we .may submit written testimony in a
timely manner?
Thanks1
Bill Seider! AlA
PIVOT Architecture
t.541.342.7291
www.pivotarchitecture.com
11/20/2006
HARDING Terri L
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Katherine Boyd [kboyd@uoregon,edu]
SaturdaYf November 181 20066:35 PM
HARDING Terri L
Residentia'lZoning Change
Dear Terri Harding,
I am writing because I recently received a letter describing the request to change the
ttArea I5H neighborhood from medium density
residential to low density residential. As a Eugene native and a
student learning more about land-use planning, lam saddened that the City Council
initiated this 'application.
As David Hinkley wrote in a recent Eugene Weekly article, our city is developing a Hhollow
core" with less density at the center and more toward the peripheral areas. This
migration away from the central area has led to tl1e dismal state of downtown Eugene, an
area which the city has been trying to re-invigorate for years. How is it that, after
countless ideas for how to revitalize downtown, as \-\l'ell as pouring millions of dollars
into this effort, the City Council has decided to back a reduction of housing density in
an areas directly adjacent to downtown Eugene? Perhaps they were thinking that because
none bf the efforts have succeeded so far, the best choice would be to rip out the feeding
tubes and let it die. Putting a cap on the amount of density allowed in a neighborhood so
int~grated with downtown robs us of the opportunity to create well designed, beautiful
housing that is within walking distance of local
businesses, the library, and public transit. Instead of
encouraging smart growth, we are catering to the wishes of a few short-sighted
individuals. SiTnultaneously, this zoning change will encourage development toward the
fringes of the city, putting pressure on the urban growth boundary.
Instead of looking for ways to mo\re denser housing out of our backyards, we should be
looking for ways that it can, satisfy our ideas about: \tv-hat a neighborhood should accomplish
socially, aestheticall)l, and environmentally. There are 111..1merOUS precedents that
illustrate hO\-\1more density can increase the vitality of a neighborhood if it is done
well.
Bottom Line; Eugene is growing. A dense core. means a cit)r with
thriving local businesses that is less dependent on automobiles.
Grovvth toward the perimeter facilitates urban sprawl. The choice 'Are make about Area 15 is
a choice between the two.
Thank you for your time,
Katie Boyd
L NOV 9 2006
...........,,< ;
/4-
. . clt- . ~....
~ Y-1u->< / ..... .........~.
~~ ~ ~~_....JI~tL/,) 10
~dJ 1Pk .huuJt ~C h...
~- ~~<. ~
~/~~. .~~-,- - 1~.tTM~~-
f7l W Jt\.. ~ fA} ~ . , UA-,J;dAA..
U ~ ~ JW...r-..
1
..... .. 1- . tu;U., M ~ ~~
~.~dJJ.~(J~~~ ~
~ 1Ld..............................~~ ................. ........... .............. .... L
I
~
~
~
/5J5f 1-/~67- 7
d/-
, .
Page 1 of 1
HARDING Terri L
.From: leon Goldin [Igoldin@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 08,2006 4:12 PM
To: HARDING Terri L
Subject:FUe Name (#) : Jefferson/Far West (MA 06.5, RA 06-3, CA 06-1)
G.ood afternoon:
The Leon & Martha Goldin Revocable Trust is the owner of the improved real property located at 1707
. Jefferson Street, Eugene, Or 97402. The improvement on the real property consist of a single family
house.
The Trust has received a Notice of Hearing ofthe Eugene Planning Commission on File Name (#) :
Jefferson/Far \\lest (l\1A 06-5, RA 06-3, Cl\06..}). '
l~he Notice states that the Metro Plan Amendnlent (City file MA 06-5) \vQuld anlend the Ivletro PlaIl
land use diagram from a designation of Medium Density Residential to a designation of Low Density
R.esidential for the subject property .
117hat is the difference betlveen Medium Densi!)) Residential and L01V Density Residential?
Does this change impact on existing structures? If so, hO'YtJ?
The Notice states that the Refinelnent Plall i\mendment (City file RA 06-3) would amend the
Refinement Plallland use diagram from a designation of LO~T-Mediunl Density l{esidential to a
designation of LO\N Dellsity l{esidential for the subject property, and to ame.nd tIle text describing tIle
land use designation.
ff/'hat is the difference bet1veen LOrv-A1edium IJensit)/ Residential anti [,011/ !Jensit).J Residential?
Does this change impact on existiJ1g structures? Ifso, hOlV?
r-rhank you for your help.
[.Jeon Goldin, Trustee of the Leon & Martha Goldin Revocable 'rrust.
1. 1/9/20()6
Message
Page I of 1
HARDING Terri L
From: Chuck Bailey Architect AlA [cba@rio.com]
Sent: Monday, November D6l 20069:18 AM '
To': HARDING Terri L
Subject: amend metro plan
Hi TerriJ
I just received the notice of public hearing about the Jefferson/Far West refinement plan. What is the purpose
of changiflQ density designation? This is the first ,I have heard of this. Who is prompting this. to take place? Thank
you, Kurt .
Kurt Albrecht AlA
Chuck Bailey Architect AlA
1740 Willamette Street
Eugene) OR 97401
(541) 485-3315 ph/fax
cb~@rlp"cQrn
11/6/2006
Jefferson Westside Neighbors
A City-Chartered Neighborhood Association
October 28, 2006
Terri Harding
Senior Planner,
Eugene Planning Division
99 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
RE,: Metro Plan, Jefferson/Far West Refinement Pl~n!l a~d,Eugene Code anlendments
Dear Terri:
At our general meeting on Septe;mber 12; the Jefferson Westside,Neighbors voted
unanituqusly (34-0) to endorse Council's act.ion regarding the rede.signated area in the
Jefferson neighborhood (see attached resolution). Specifically, the J\\TN requested the
'Metro Plan, Jefferson/Far West Reflnement Plan (JIF\\' RP), and Land Use Code be
changed to dc.signate the subject area as "Low Density Residential."
The JWN vote, along vvith the previously subtnitted petition signea by over 180 re,sidents
of the redesignaled area and adjacent areas, deluonstrates broad public avvareness of the
issues and support for the proposed amendn1ents.
We believe the proposed amendments are- consistent with the respective approval criteria.
'J.-/e notespeeifica.Uy that the JIF\\l RP addresses Ee 9.8424(2)(c) and/or (e).
Please let us kno\v if we can provide further infoftnation.
We \vould appreciate receiving copies of referral responses as you receive thctn and
being kept apprised of any issues that may arise. '
Thank you for your help.
Regards,
~eK6vM--
p cv~ 1 ft4Jcr
Rene Kane, Co:"'Chair
Paul (~onte, C:o-Chair
ec: Dennis Taylor~ City Manager
Jefferson Westside Neighbors' Resolution
On September, 2006, the Jefferson Westside Neighbors in general meeting
unanitnously (34-0) resolved:
The Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) requests City Council amend the Metro Plan,
the JeffersonlFar \:\lest Refinement Plan, and the Land Use Code to limit subarea 15 in
the plan (either in its entirety or the portion south of Amazon Canal) to 1-,0\\1 Density
Residential development. Further, the JWN supports a provision that unless Council takes
further action "lith regard t.o the subject area, the subject area shall revert to alIo\\' t./O\\I-
to Medium-Density Residential develop1:nent on July I, 2008.
The JWN co-chairs are directed to take appropriate action to cOlnmutiicate this request to
City staff and officials and to "\lork for its prompt inlplementation.