Eugene staff brief council on extending 'residential character' definition to more neighborhood plans

Planning Director Alyssa Hunter told the Eugene City Council at a June 25 work session that the city’s codified definition of “residential character” — “a combination of qualities and features that gives identity to a particular area where the predominant use is housing, and that distinguishes the area from other areas” — was added to Eugene’s land use code in 2008 and currently applies in limited land use reviews but could be extended to several older refinement plans.

Hunter said the 2008 glossary-style definition has narrow application today — primarily to subdivisions, partitions and site reviews when an approval criterion requires consistency with an adopted refinement plan that uses the term residential character — but council extended that definition to the West Side neighborhood plan during the 2022 clear-and-objective housing code amendments. Hunter said staff scanned refinement plans and found the term appears in five plans and that those plans are 33 to 43 years old and may no longer reflect current housing conditions.

The practical effect of extending the definition, staff said, would be to bring the definition into more land use applications — including code amendments, refinement-plan amendments, conditional use permits, planned unit developments and zone changes — whenever a policy containing the term residential character applies. Hunter warned that the definition is “very subjective,” that it is “not a design tool,” and that “it could make it harder to address our housing need by potentially precluding changes that would allow for newer innovative housing types” and could increase cost and delay through appeals.

Council discussion focused on how the definition would interact with state middle‑housing law. Councilor Groves asked how the definition would relate to House Bill 2001. Hunter replied the definition would not override state law and would most likely come into play for future, novel housing types or city-initiated code amendments rather than for fourplexes and other housing forms already allowed under the middle‑housing rules.

Councilor Randy Kaczynski said the language is “very subjective” and warned it can be used to block housing; Councilor Emily Nier called the term “a relic of a time when folks ... were looking for ways to exclude certain housing types,” and said she would not support expanding its use. Councilor Alan Clark and Councilor Zelenka asked staff whether the definition would protect neighborhoods from incompatible industrial adjacency; staff said it does not function well as a tool to resolve siting conflicts or to implement specific urban design elements such as sidewalk width, street trees or building placement.

Staff also raised resourcing and procedural issues: extending the definition would require amendments to refinement plans, and in some cases county participation in the planning commission and city council process; staff said they are focused on housing supply and production and that work to extend the definition would compete with legally mandated tasks.

No policy change or direction was taken at the work session; staff presented the background and risks and council discussion closed with no formal action. Hunter said she would be available for follow-up as council considers whether to direct amendments to any refinement plans.