which petitioners assert is detached single-family dwellings, and deny the application if that potential <br />residential use will undermine the single-family "character" of the neighborhood. <br />That view is fundamentally inconsistent with the planning and zoning for the subject property, which <br />allows a variety of residential dwelling types and densities as outright permitted uses. Petitioners' <br />preferred interpretation would effectively limit new residential development within the <br />neighborhood to detached single family dwellings. Accordingly, we reject petitioners' view that EC <br />9.9680(1)(a) requires the city to determine the residential character of the neighborhood based on the <br />predominant dwelling types and density and then determine whether the presumed residential use of <br />the created parcels would erode that "character." <br />....As noted, the policy to prevent the erosion of the neighborhood's residential character cannot <br />possibly mean preserving the existing or predominant types of residential dwellings and density <br />against other residential dwelling types and densities, when the applicable plan and zoning <br />designations specifically allow a variety of dwelling types and densities as outright permitted uses." <br />After the loss of this appeal, the S-JW was implemented, which changed the zoning designations; however, <br />neither the plan designation of medium density nor the policies of the Metro Plan change (see above re: <br />Plan/Zone conflict for the S-1W.) <br />By limiting housing types and densities to duplexes and detached single family housing at a density of below 14 <br />units per acre, the S-JW not only violates the Metro Plan, but also is inconsistent with the existing character of <br />the neighborhood. Of the variety of housing types that have been in existence in the neighborhood since 1900, <br />including cottage clusters, fourplexes, triplexes, and small apartment complexes, under the S-JW, now only <br />detached one-family dwellings and duplexes are permitted. Moreover, through lot size minimums and other <br />requirements S-JW prohibits housing types that are essential to maintaining the character of the neighborhood. <br />Allowing only detached one-family housing and duplexes but not other housing types appropriate for medium <br />density areas enforces a character of the neighborhood as that of a single-family neighborhood, which is <br />inconsistent with both the Metro Plan designation and with the actual historical housing types and development <br />patterns in existence in the neighborhood. It ensures that any future development will decrease the diversity of <br />housing types in the neighborhood, as opposed to furthering the historical patterns of housing in the <br />neighborhood, ultimately degrading the character of the neighborhood. Explicitly prohibiting SDUs as a housing <br />type in the S-JW exacerbates this conflict and increases the S-JW's degradation of the character of the <br />neighborhood. <br />Conclusion <br />The prohibition of SDUs in the S-JW and S-C is clearly in violation of both state law and the Metro Plan and <br />furthers the existing non-conformance of the S-JW with the Metro Plan. In addition, Council highlighted the <br />need to increase clarity in the code surrounding SDUs in their discussions surrounding SB 1051 and the proposed <br />ordinances. Prohibiting SDUs in the S-JW and/or S-C does not accomplish this goal, as stated above, and in fact <br />decreases the clarity of the code. The language of this motion may actually reduce the amount of housing <br />permitted in the S-JW area. <br />We therefore urge Council to vote "no" on the ordinance as amended. <br />WE CAN (Walkable Eugene Citizens Advisory Network) <br />www.wecaneugene.org <br />wecaneugene@gmail.com <br />