My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
23_10_06 Batch1 Testimony
>
OnTrack
>
MA
>
2023
>
MA 23-5
>
23_10_06 Batch1 Testimony
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2023 4:01:51 PM
Creation date
10/9/2023 4:01:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
MA
File Year
23
File Sequence Number
5
Application Name
River Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan
Document Type
Public Testimony
Document_Date
10/6/2023
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
From:Hillary Kittleson <br />To:Eugene RR-SC Plan <br />Cc:Bev at Home; Jolene Siemsen; Charles Kittleson <br />Subject:Joint Hearing on River Road Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan <br />Date:Thursday, October 5, 2023 4:44:40 PM <br />You don't often get email from hillarykittleson@msn.com. Learn why this is important <br />[EXTERNAL ] <br />Members of the Eugene and Lane County Planning Commissions: <br />I have lived in the River Road neighborhood for over 30 years and served as a <br />member of SCRRPT, which worked hard to listen to our neighbors and then <br />lobby for the initiation of the neighbor plan. With an allocation of $100,000 <br />from City Contingency funds, the formal planning process began. At that time, <br />the project time line called for completion in about two years. That was in <br />2017! <br />The triple squeeze of Covid and dramatic middle housing code changes at the <br />State and local level has caused years of delay and a reduced plan scope. So, I <br />am asking that the City mitigate the effects of the reduced scope by using one- <br />time funds to address concerns expressed by the Citizen Advisory Committee <br />and the board of the River Road Community Organization. <br />For me, this is a socio-economic equity issue that good land use planning can <br />address. In high SES neighborhoods, residents can have some assurance that <br />“highest and best use” will include basic amenities that contribute to a livable <br />neighborhood. In mixed SES areas, that assurance can only be given by the <br />government, through its policies and codes. The concerns expressed by the <br />RRCO board regarding potential loss of commercial properties is a good <br />example: …staff decision to eliminate the proposed Corridor Mixed Use zone <br />leave the majority of our current Commercial properties in the C-2 Community <br />Commercial Zone. This zone allows 100% of the properties in the zone to be <br />residential with no commercial at all. The eliminated Corridor Mixed Use zone <br />would have required commercial use on the ground floor. The economic study <br />included in Sera Architect’s River Road Corridor Study showed that economic <br />demand for housing is high and commercial use is low. Without regulation <br />requiring it or some kind of incentive to encourage it, the commercial facilities <br />we currently have may well be replaced by multi-family housing… <br />13
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.