My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Public Comments submitted 4-30-18 to 6-11-18
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2018
>
CA 18-1
>
Public Comments submitted 4-30-18 to 6-11-18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2018 4:12:55 PM
Creation date
7/20/2018 4:08:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
18
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
Secondary Dwellings (Phase 1 Implementation of SB 1051)
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
6/11/2018
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
123
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
HANSEN Alissa H <br />From: SELSER Lindsay R <br />Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 1:30 PM <br />To: HANSEN Alissa H; HOSUCK Robin A <br />Subject: FW: Debunking WECAN's pseudo-legal letter <br />FYI <br />From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com> <br />Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 10:24 AM <br />To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <mayorcouncilandcitymanager@ci.eugene.or.us> <br />Cc: Eugene NLC <eugene-nlc@googlegroups.com>; Ted Coopman <tmcoopman@yahoo.com>; KANE Rene (SMTP) <br /><renekane@comcast.net> <br />Subject: Debunking WECAN's pseudo-legal letter <br />Dear Mayor and Councilors, <br />The letter from WECAN is a fine demonstration of how "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. <br />The simple truth is that the Jefferson-Westside Special Area Zone and the Chambers Special Area Zone <br />stand as models for a citizen-driven process that created Eugene's most flexible medium-density residential <br />zones that also ensure future development "protects, repairs and enhances neighborhood livability." <br />First, let's dispense with the ill-informed attack on the zone's conformance with the Eugene-Springfield <br />Metropolitan Plan. It's very simple: The two zones were "acknowledged" by the State after their unanimous <br />adoption by City Council, and these zones cannot be legally attacked as "nonconforming." (In legal parlance, <br />this attempt by WECAN is known as a "collateral attack" and is not permitted under Oregon's statutes and <br />court decisions.) <br />S-JW and S-C are consistent with the Metro Plan, both legally and in substance. Period. <br />I won't bother to unwind the letter's devious attempts to attack the fact that both zones do allow <br />development within the range of Medium-Density Residential (14 to 28 dwelting units per net acre). The <br />Planning Division staff and Planning Commission reviewed this issue, and a thorough evaluation clearly <br />demonstrates that fact. (The letter's bogus "statistics' are based on the R-2 maximum density, which is not <br />at all what S-JW and S-C are required or intended to allow. The legal and intelligent intent of S-JW and S-C <br />is to allow residential development within the range of the Metro Plan "Medium-Density Residential" <br />designation. <br />I will point out that WECAN's puffed-up citation to Jefferson Westside Neighbors vs. City of Eugene, Or LUBA <br />045 (2008) is way off base. First off, subsequent to this decision, the City Council adopted an explicit <br />definition of "Residential Character" specifically in response to LUBA's dubious finding in order to clarify <br />the local policy and code intent where this term is used: <br />"Residential Character. A combination of qualities and features that gives identity to a particular <br />area where the predominant use is housing and that distinguishes the area from other areas." <br />But, in any case, the S-JW and S-C zones define clear-and-objective standards, and do not at all rely on a <br />discretionary evaluation of "residential character" or "neighborhood character." <br />Similarly, the ginned-up claim that excluding "Dwelling, Secondary (or "Accessory Dwelling Unit") from the <br />explicit list of permitted uses conflicts with SB 1051 is ridiculous. Yes, S-JW and S-C do fall under the ADU <br />requirements in SB 1051. That's never been contested. And, yes as both the DLCD representative and the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.