Residents turn back effort to undo Chambers area infill standards
December 11, 2006
At the urging of Chambers area residents and the JWN Executive Board, City Council
voted overwhelmingly (7-1) to reject an attempt by outgoing Councilor David Kelly to undo
a key element of the Chambers area infill standards that Council approved in December
2005.
This was another important victory for JWN and all Eugene neighborhoods, not only by
Council's reaffirming the carefully-crafted infill standards, but also by Council's refusal to
undo the work of a long, broad public process in which scores of citizens had participated.
Chambers Special Area Zone infill standards
Over a sixteen-month period in 2004-2005, more than 50 residents in the northwest
corner of JWN participated in the City-led "Chambers Revisited" project, which resulted in
a model set of infill standards for the area roughly bounded by Polk and Chambers
Streets and W. 8th and 13th Avenues.
Residents formed a grass roots organization, the Chambers Area Families for Healthy
Neighborhoods (CAFHN, pronounced "caffeine") to develop proposed standards.
On March 8, 2005, the JWN membership voted overwhelmingly to support CAFHN's efforts
to ensure future infill did not continue to erode and destabilize the character and stability of
their part of our neighborhood.
In Fall 2005, over eighty different people and organizations testified in support of the
standards during the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The standards
were supported by such diverse groups as Lane County Home Builders and Friends Of
Eugene. This public process provided an incredibly thorough vetting, and generated
broad-based public support, for the adopted standards.
The Planning Commission voted 4-1 vote to recommend Council adopt the standards
unchanged from the staff and CAFHN recommendation. Planning Commission President
at the time, John Lawless, observed that the standards were "beautifully crafted." The only
commissioner to vote against the proposed Chambers Special Area Zone (CSAZ) was
Jon Belcher, who opposed the sensible standards residents and staff had developed to
base the maximum allowable dwellings on lot size.
On December 12, 2006, City Council voted 5-1 to adopt the standards unchanged. The
only councilor to vote against the CSAZ was David Kelly, who also opposed the standard
for maximum allowable dwellings.
The CSAZ standards have been in effect for over a year, and the zone’s flexible and
innovative standards were, and are, widely supported. Other than the unique case of the
Measure 37 claim that was satisfactorily resolved, no complaints have been brought to the
JWN board. The standards are proving effective at preventing destructive infill while
allowing great latitude in development and a significant, yet manageable, increase in
density.
The two original opponents of the CSAZ standards seized on the Measure 37 claim --
which had been resolved in a true "win-win-win" manner -- to attempt to undo the
maximum dwellings standards. At the November 20 public hearing on the M37 claim, Jon
Belcher claimed Council’s approval of the S-C/R-2 subarea (the CSAZ area within the
JWN) was “a de facto downzoning of this area from R-2 to R-1.”
The S-C/R-2 standards are not by any stretch a de facto R-1 zone. The S-C/R-2 standards
allow three dwellings on many lots, in contrast to the R-1 maximum of one dwelling in
most cases, duplexes on corner lots only, and limited provisions for secondary dwellings.
The S-C/R-2 standards also allow creation of alley-access-only lots, which neither R-1,
nor any other residential zone, allows.
David Kelly followed up by sending an e-mail (see second page) to other City Councilors
Sunday morning, December 10, just the day before Council met to consider the M37
resolution. Councilor Kelly said he would introduce a motion to have the Planning
Commission re-examine the CSAZ standards and make recommendations. Prior to this
last-minute proposal, neither Jon Belcher nor David Kelly made any attempt to contact
CAFHN or JWN leaders to discuss the issue or alert residents to the proposed motion.
From their comments, there was no mistaking both officials wanted another shot at
undoing the standards they'd opposed in the beginning.
Fortunately, alert residents jumped into action. The JWN co-chairs had previously sent a
letter to Council rebutting Jon Belcher's testimony. And an e-mail opposing David Kelly's
motion was sent to Council immediately. Leaders from several other neighborhood
associations joined the effort and contacted their City Councilors to urge them to vote
against the motion.
At the Council meeting on December 11, JWN co-chair, Rene Kane, testified against the
motion, as did several members of CAFHN. No one testified in support of the motion.
When it came to a vote, the Council voted overwhelmingly 7-1 to reject the motion.
Thus, Council once again made clear they continue to support the flexible, effective infill
standards that CAFHN and staff had developed, including standards that limit the number
of dwellings per lot to a sustainable level in our neighborhoods.
Councilor Gary Papé also made a strong statement to the Planning Division staff and the
Planning Commission to get something done promptly about infill standards. His
comment was:
"I would challenge the City Manager and our Planning [& Development] Director ... I would
hope you have some infill standards together by the end of next year. Planning
Commissioners -- any of you who are here or any of you listening -- Please get some infill
standards before the end of next year."
A major win for citizen involvement in planning processes
While infill standards were the focus of this latest action, there was a much larger
principle at stake, as well.
This was an attempt to throw open a decision that was the result of an incredibly long,
broad, and deep public process and which ultimately generated enormous public support
(and almost no opposition) across a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations.
Even the M37 claimant supports the current S-C/R-2 standards.
Over the past year, there has been no public call at all for revisiting the Council decision
except by the two officials who originally opposed the standards.
So, the sole basis for re-opening the CSAZ standards was because a single planning
commissioner and a single councilor -- who opposed the original Planning Commission
(4-1) and Council (5-1) decisions -- want another shot to undo standards that place limits
on dwelling units based on lot size.
Had Council approved this motion, it would have required residents to repeat hours and
hours of work just to prevent opponents of the standards undoing what had been
supported and agreed upon by so many. Such an unprecedented action would have been
a terrible blow to citizen involvement -- not just in this case or other land use processes,
but for all areas of citizen involvement.
In this case (as it would be in other situations), it would have been very difficult to get
residents to re-engage because ordinary folks are already reticent to slog through the
public planning process, and why would they want to repeat their efforts when they saw
that -- despite an overwhelming consensus around the original decision -- the process's
outcome was subject to undercutting by a few individuals.
Fortunately, all the other Councilors voted against such a damaging precedent. This was
a very critical win for all neighborhood associations and citizen involvement.
At the urging of Chambers area residents and the JWN Executive Board, City Council
voted overwhelmingly (7-1) to reject an attempt by outgoing Councilor David Kelly to undo
a key element of the Chambers area infill standards that Council approved in December
2005.
This was another important victory for JWN and all Eugene neighborhoods, not only by
Council's reaffirming the carefully-crafted infill standards, but also by Council's refusal to
undo the work of a long, broad public process in which scores of citizens had participated.
Chambers Special Area Zone infill standards
Over a sixteen-month period in 2004-2005, more than 50 residents in the northwest
corner of JWN participated in the City-led "Chambers Revisited" project, which resulted in
a model set of infill standards for the area roughly bounded by Polk and Chambers
Streets and W. 8th and 13th Avenues.
Residents formed a grass roots organization, the Chambers Area Families for Healthy
Neighborhoods (CAFHN, pronounced "caffeine") to develop proposed standards.
On March 8, 2005, the JWN membership voted overwhelmingly to support CAFHN's efforts
to ensure future infill did not continue to erode and destabilize the character and stability of
their part of our neighborhood.
In Fall 2005, over eighty different people and organizations testified in support of the
standards during the Planning Commission and City Council hearings. The standards
were supported by such diverse groups as Lane County Home Builders and Friends Of
Eugene. This public process provided an incredibly thorough vetting, and generated
broad-based public support, for the adopted standards.
The Planning Commission voted 4-1 vote to recommend Council adopt the standards
unchanged from the staff and CAFHN recommendation. Planning Commission President
at the time, John Lawless, observed that the standards were "beautifully crafted." The only
commissioner to vote against the proposed Chambers Special Area Zone (CSAZ) was
Jon Belcher, who opposed the sensible standards residents and staff had developed to
base the maximum allowable dwellings on lot size.
On December 12, 2006, City Council voted 5-1 to adopt the standards unchanged. The
only councilor to vote against the CSAZ was David Kelly, who also opposed the standard
for maximum allowable dwellings.
The CSAZ standards have been in effect for over a year, and the zone’s flexible and
innovative standards were, and are, widely supported. Other than the unique case of the
Measure 37 claim that was satisfactorily resolved, no complaints have been brought to the
JWN board. The standards are proving effective at preventing destructive infill while
allowing great latitude in development and a significant, yet manageable, increase in
density.
The two original opponents of the CSAZ standards seized on the Measure 37 claim --
which had been resolved in a true "win-win-win" manner -- to attempt to undo the
maximum dwellings standards. At the November 20 public hearing on the M37 claim, Jon
Belcher claimed Council’s approval of the S-C/R-2 subarea (the CSAZ area within the
JWN) was “a de facto downzoning of this area from R-2 to R-1.”
The S-C/R-2 standards are not by any stretch a de facto R-1 zone. The S-C/R-2 standards
allow three dwellings on many lots, in contrast to the R-1 maximum of one dwelling in
most cases, duplexes on corner lots only, and limited provisions for secondary dwellings.
The S-C/R-2 standards also allow creation of alley-access-only lots, which neither R-1,
nor any other residential zone, allows.
David Kelly followed up by sending an e-mail (see second page) to other City Councilors
Sunday morning, December 10, just the day before Council met to consider the M37
resolution. Councilor Kelly said he would introduce a motion to have the Planning
Commission re-examine the CSAZ standards and make recommendations. Prior to this
last-minute proposal, neither Jon Belcher nor David Kelly made any attempt to contact
CAFHN or JWN leaders to discuss the issue or alert residents to the proposed motion.
From their comments, there was no mistaking both officials wanted another shot at
undoing the standards they'd opposed in the beginning.
Fortunately, alert residents jumped into action. The JWN co-chairs had previously sent a
letter to Council rebutting Jon Belcher's testimony. And an e-mail opposing David Kelly's
motion was sent to Council immediately. Leaders from several other neighborhood
associations joined the effort and contacted their City Councilors to urge them to vote
against the motion.
At the Council meeting on December 11, JWN co-chair, Rene Kane, testified against the
motion, as did several members of CAFHN. No one testified in support of the motion.
When it came to a vote, the Council voted overwhelmingly 7-1 to reject the motion.
Thus, Council once again made clear they continue to support the flexible, effective infill
standards that CAFHN and staff had developed, including standards that limit the number
of dwellings per lot to a sustainable level in our neighborhoods.
Councilor Gary Papé also made a strong statement to the Planning Division staff and the
Planning Commission to get something done promptly about infill standards. His
comment was:
"I would challenge the City Manager and our Planning [& Development] Director ... I would
hope you have some infill standards together by the end of next year. Planning
Commissioners -- any of you who are here or any of you listening -- Please get some infill
standards before the end of next year."
A major win for citizen involvement in planning processes
While infill standards were the focus of this latest action, there was a much larger
principle at stake, as well.
This was an attempt to throw open a decision that was the result of an incredibly long,
broad, and deep public process and which ultimately generated enormous public support
(and almost no opposition) across a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations.
Even the M37 claimant supports the current S-C/R-2 standards.
Over the past year, there has been no public call at all for revisiting the Council decision
except by the two officials who originally opposed the standards.
So, the sole basis for re-opening the CSAZ standards was because a single planning
commissioner and a single councilor -- who opposed the original Planning Commission
(4-1) and Council (5-1) decisions -- want another shot to undo standards that place limits
on dwelling units based on lot size.
Had Council approved this motion, it would have required residents to repeat hours and
hours of work just to prevent opponents of the standards undoing what had been
supported and agreed upon by so many. Such an unprecedented action would have been
a terrible blow to citizen involvement -- not just in this case or other land use processes,
but for all areas of citizen involvement.
In this case (as it would be in other situations), it would have been very difficult to get
residents to re-engage because ordinary folks are already reticent to slog through the
public planning process, and why would they want to repeat their efforts when they saw
that -- despite an overwhelming consensus around the original decision -- the process's
outcome was subject to undercutting by a few individuals.
Fortunately, all the other Councilors voted against such a damaging precedent. This was
a very critical win for all neighborhood associations and citizen involvement.
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Jefferson Westside Neighbors
