Do land use code right.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Eugene's city government worked for six years to write its new land use code - the 400-page document that sets forth the technical specs for construction and development. All that work produced a code that, according to the Land Use Board of Appeals, is flawed in fundamental respects. A quick fix won't correct the deficiencies. Unless the city takes the time to repair the code properly, it will leave itself vulnerable to another legal challenge.

The new code took effect last August, and was promptly challenged by the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce and the Home Builders Association of Lane County. Some members of these groups undoubtedly would prefer that development be allowed to proceed with as few restrictions as possible. But the chamber and the home builders represent the people who will have to make the code work - and those people found it to be not just restrictive, but vague, counterproductive and legally flawed.

The chamber and the home builders challenged the code on three primary points, and in sending the code back to the city for repairs, LUBA ruled in the groups' favor on all three. For instance, the challengers claimed that new protections for streams, trees and other natural features had reduced Eugene's inventory of developable land, and that the city had not adjusted its inventory to account for that reduction, as required by state law. This and the other flaws are not minor problems that can be resolved with a few changes of wording.

On Monday, the Eugene City Council wisely decided against adopting revised code language on the spot - affected parties had been given only a few days to review the proposed changes. Instead, the City Council invited the public to submit comments on the revisions through April 19. That's still not long enough. The comments the council hears in the week to come should convince members that a deeper review is needed.

One way to begin would be to survey property owners who began construction or development projects during the seven months that the new land use code was in effect. How many have there been? What was their experience? Do the resulting projects resemble the types of development the new code is meant to encourage?

The council also should attempt to hear from people who had contemplated projects in Eugene, but decided to build elsewhere or not at all. In shaping its land use policies, Eugene is not choosing between development that is attractive and makes efficient use of public services, and development that is ugly and expensive. There's a third choice: Property can be left vacant, and existing buildings - including unattractive and inefficient ones - can be left alone.

For instance, the recent redevelopment of the Oakway Center on Coburg Road would not have occurred under the new land use code. The remodeled center does not represent the "new urbanism" that the code is meant to encourage, with storefronts close to streets and parking lots hidden from view. But it's better than what was there before. Eugene's interest in compact, appealing development would not have been served by foreclosing redevelopment opportunities in ways that would have forced the Oakway Center to slide toward blight while retailers built new stores on the city's fringe.

Similarly, the Safeway store on East 18th Avenue filed plans for its reconstruction three days before the new land use code took effect. Had it waited, the store would have had to be rebuilt no more than 15 feet from 18th, with parking around the back. With Hiron's Drug Store next door, it's hard to imagine how compliance with the code could have been possible. Most likely, Safeway would have decided against rebuilding the store, putting it on a path toward eventual closure and leaving Eugene with one less grocer near the city's core.

Eugene needs a land use code that protects natural resources and encourages compact growth. It also needs a code that encourages urban redevelopment, maintains an adequate inventory of developable land and can be understood by the people whose work is guided by it.

Six years of work failed to produce such a plan. A rush job won't produce one now.