Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout24_04_08_Batch 7 TestimonyRiver Road -Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan City File: MA 23-5, CA 23-3 County File: 509-PA23-05532 Testimony Batch 7 Batch Information Date Range Date Batch Number Page Count Start End Submissions 10:36 3/12/2024 Testimony 4/5/2024 7 23 Steve Norris 4/8/2024 10 09:29 1 at 15:01 Testimony 3/22/2024 From To Date Time Attachments John Quetzalcoatl Murray Testimony 4/5/2024 10:36 Ken Beeson Testimony 4/5/2024 10:04 1 Steve Norris Testimony 4/5/2024 09:29 1 Kate Perle Testimony 3/22/2024 20:29 1 Alison Evans Testimony 3/13/2024 8:33 Patricia Wiskow Testimony 3/12/2024 17:56 Karen Lawrence Testimony 3/12/2024 17:42 Hans Wittig Testimony 3/12/2024 16:56 Sarah Steindorf Testimony 3/12/2024 16:55 Jon Belcher Testimony 3/12/2024 16:35 1 Notes: For reference, submissions are organized in reverse chronological order by the date they were included in the record. If viewing the digital PDF file, please note that bookmarks are included for navigating between each submission. From: John Quetzalcoatl Murray To: Eugene RR -SC Plan; ANDRADE Fabio; KOEHLER RAY Cindy J; Clare Strawn; BELCHER Jon (SMTP); PERLE Kate SMTP Cc: Rep.PaulHolvey oregonlegislature.gov; Rep Conrad Subject: Though RRCO-SCCO volunteers" efforts may not appear in the final plan, you can still recognize and reward them for their time Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 10:38:17 AM You don't often get email fromjohnq@publicnewspapers.org. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL Hi John Q here for KEPW 97.3 Whole Community News. In the course of reporting on the River Road - Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan, I have heard members of the Eugene City Council, the Lane County Board of Commissioners, the River Road Community Organization and the Santa Clara Community Organization widely praise and recognize the residents who volunteered thousands of unpaid hours contributing to this project. I also heard that as circumstances changed over the years --- including reduced budgets and state legislative mandates that reduced local options --- many of the volunteers' recommended zoning changes, code amendments, and other policy documents were discarded and do not appear in the final plans submitted for approval in April 2024. While this unfortunate outcome was largely out of your control, it is possible to curb the resulting disappointment, disillusionment, disengagement, and decline in trust in local government. It is possible to recognize your volunteers, reward their efforts with a promise of material benefit, and continue to build community --- by recording the number of volunteers' hours in time bank accounts. A time bank is a network of individual, organizational, and business 'members' who provide services, track and bank their hours, and then spend those hours to get their own needs met. There is no barter or exchange; one member does a friendly, neighborly favor for another and records the time they spent doing so. Members share their talents and services, record their hours, then 'spend' them later on services they want. Everyone's hours are treated as equal in value. After seeing a TED talk about how a New Zealand time bank helped its community recover from two major earthquakes, Eugene neighborhood preparedness committees created their own local time bank. The time bank can foster relationships and catalog resources to help our community prepare for and recover from disruptive events, such as major winter storms, high winds, power outages, wildfires, earthquakes, and pandemics. Lane County's two local time banks are standing by, ready to accept your "payments" to the volunteers who participated in the River Road - Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan planning project. Check out the Lane Services Sharing Network and the Whole Community Time Bank online. This practice can also be used by Eugene's Office of Equity and Community Engagement --- which has been recording the volunteer hours donated by neighborhood organizations for years --- even as it expands to serve and record the volunteer hours recorded by other community organizations and nonprofits. This equitable method of recognizing volunteers for their civic participation will be especially useful in a time of reduced government budgets. We are continuing to ask our local legislators to support state regulation, so that local time banks will be subject to the same security and auditing standards that are applied to all other banks. In fact, we are also encouraging all local banks to allow customers to open accounts in the local "time dollar" currency. (The IRS has previously ruled that time bank payments are not subject to taxes, as long as the time dollars are not converted to another currency.) Although many of the events that led to these unfortunate outcomes for the RRCO-SCCO plan were out of your control, the decision to recognize and reward your volunteers for their valuable time is always available to you. Thank you for your consideration. Peace, John Quetzalcoatl Murray Whole Community News / KEPW 97.3 FM work: 541-632-3692 cell: 541-731-8422 email: johnq publicnewspa ep rs.org schedule: haps://www.calendly.com/johngmurrU From: Ken Beeson To: DOMINGO Elena M Subject: RRSC Testimony - Ken Beeson Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 10:05:00 AM Attachments: rrsc testimony 4.2024 pdf.pdf [EXTERNAL ] Hi Elena: I'd like to submit the attached written testimony on the proposed River Road Santa Clara land use amendments to the Council. Thanks, Ken Ken Beeson 541-953-6733 April 5, 2024 To: Mayor Lucy Vinis and Eugene City Councilors From: Ken Beeson, Ward 2 Subject: River Road - Santa Clara Plan and Related City Code Amendments Dear Mayor Vinis and Councilors: I am providing this as followup to testimony on this matter I submitted to you in February. I provide this on my behalf, and not on behalf of any City of Eugene, Lane County, or local nonprofit board or commission I currently serve on including the Eugene Planning Commission, Lane County Emergency Food and Shelter Board, Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee, and Community Supported Shelters. don't believe amending the C2 maximum height development code from the existing 120 ft down to 65 ft in the RRSC area will benefit the Eugene community. urge the Council to not approve it. Apart from the two neighborhood associations and some local residents who don't want to see future structures higher than 65 ft in the limited C2 area of RRSC, I think most other affected constituencies/interest groups will be adversely impacted by this amendment (e.g., potential home buyers, renters, builders, developers, businesses, etc). I'm not aware of an existing building higher than 65 ft in the RRSC area. However, if the current code is left in place, there might be a few built in the next 20 years and, if so, I think they could be multi -unit development with ground floor commercial, upper level housing and other related benefits. And we can assume the added housing will be needed in this community. I also think if the code is not amended and some taller structures are built, adverse impact on local residential land owners will be limited, particularly when weighed against the potential benefits to the greater community. The C2 area in RRSC is confined primarily along River Road and River Avenue and most of it does not abut existing R-1 property. If the 120 ft standard is maintained, the chances are low that buildings higher than 65 ft will be constructed adjacent to R-1 property and, if that does occur, the current code includes effective and reasonable transition standards. 4 believe proposed land use amendments that modify long established code and restrict housing development should not be approved without first determining that any benefits from the proposed restriction outweigh the community benefits from leaving the code in place. Given our worsening housing crisis, I don't think this proposed amendment meets that test. Our city needs all the housing capacity we currently have, and reducing our existing C2 maximum height in the RRSC area will reduce that capacity. We don't have excess housing capacity to give up in this particular area. Thanks for considering my input and thank you for the work you do for the community. Ken Beeson Ward 2 From: steve norris To: Eugene RR -SC Plan Subject: Parking Enforcement - Solution Date: Friday, April 5, 2024 9:29:30 AM Attachments: RRSCPlan-ParkingEnforcementSolution.pdf [EXTERNAL ] For your consideration: a potential solution to the City/County residential parking enforcement conundrum. SN Mayor, City Councilors and County Commissioners; 4-5-24 Regarding the proposed `RR/SC Neighborhood Plan' and the goal of establishing a cross - jurisdictional parking enforcement program: we (neighbors and I) have come up with a collaborative solution for your consideration, outlined below. The solution would involve a City/County Intergovernmental Agreement, minor amendments to an existing Administrative Rule and the active participation of both Community Organizations. The applicable Eugene Administrative Rule is R-5.040: "Residential Permit Parking Zone Regulations." When we asked City staff about establishing such a permit -parking zone along a County road in the River Road neighborhood the answer came back, not surprisingly; `City doesn't enforce parking on County roads so there is no mechanism for establishing such a zone.' The practical solution is to amend that narrative, allow unincorporated property owners to apply for and the City to enforce residential -permit - parking zones on unincorporated streets. We considered the following details and look forward to hearing your thoughts on them and any other related issues that crop up. • Step one: City and County agree a mechanism to address residential vehicle parking on unincorporated streets has become a cross jurisdictional need, based on the negative impacts our community is and will be experiencing from unregulated vehicle parking. • Amending Admin Rule R-5.040: besides adding language to include unincorporated properties/streets, adding the following two `Approval Criteria' (R- 5.040 -F) is highly recommended: o "Whether the street section(s) is classified "Local Access Road" (LAR)." ■ Many LARs in River Road and Santa Clara are, basically, shared driveways. Unincorporated property owners who front LARs are responsible for maintaining the safe condition and appearance of their street and right-of-way (ROW). If a majority of property owners along an LAR agree that having additional vehicles driving on and parking in their ROW would be hazardous to safety and property, they should have a codified mechanism to protect against that happening. o "Whether, and to what extent, the ROW is considered "Unimproved." ■ "Unimproved," in most cases, means the ROW is either landscaped or gravel or bare soil or a combination of all three. Rarely are they hard -surfaced or have curbs. Residents along unimproved ROW fully understand the negative impacts regular parking on and driving over unimproved ROW has. Worth noting: with the exception of LARs, the City is the jurisdiction responsible for maintenance on most County streets - and their ROWS - in RR/SC. • Costs: Costs associated with establishing and maintaining `Permit Parking Only' zones in RR/SC would be the same as establishing and maintaining those in the City - recuperated via the permit fee residents pay and the revenue from violations. • Enforcement: the nature of enforcement in "Permit Parking Only" zones in RR/SC is, like all this suggestion, open for discussion. City Parking Enforcement currently schedules regular routes through all the existing "Permit Parking Only" zones in the City, based on capacity and need. Enforcement in RR/SC could be the same or could rely more on a complaint basis, or ...? Worth noting: City "No Parking" signs are scattered throughout RR/SC and were recently installed in `Howard Meadows.' Those signs are indicators the City already has a parking enforcement presence in both neighborhoods. • Community Organization involvement: RRCO and SCCO would have a major role in this cross jurisdictional parking program. Each organization could establish a `Development Outreach' committee - if they don't already have one - to review Land Use applications and liaison with the potentially impacted neighbors. o Community Organizations see Land -Use and Development applications early on, so will have an early idea of the scope and potential impacts of new developments. o Community Organizations are invited to those `neighborhood meetings'— where developers introduce their proposed project to the surrounding neighbors. A representative from the Community Organizations would be able to offer the neighbors valuable insight and perspective and could work with them to secure a Permit -Parking zone — if one is applicable. For example, and for your consideration: 100% of the unincorporated property -owners along the 500 block of Rosewood Ave (LAR, adjacent to `Howard Meadows') recently agreed that additional/repeated driving on and parking in their unimproved ROW would be both dangerous and destructive. They unanimously approved a resolution to limit parking in their Rosewood unimproved ROW to only those who have been given permission to do so. They have purchased and will be posting "Parking By Permit Only" signage in the near future. Without any formal enforcement mechanism in place - and no desire to be enforcers — those neighbors will rely on education and prevention to fulfil their responsibilities. Thank you for considering our solution. We hope you recognize the simplicity and inclusiveness of this opportunity and, after deliberation, move some version of it forward. Sincerely and with appreciation for the good work both jurisdictions do for our collective community. Steve Norris, River Road From: Kathryn Perle To: Euaene RR-SC Plan Subject: testimony Date: Friday, March 22, 2024 8:28:41 PM Attachments: np testimony.docx [EXTERNAL ] Please include in the record. Thanks, Kate I am Kate Perle, I have volunteered with the Santa Clara Community Organization for over 20 years watching our neighborhood changing, our needs evolving and our community organization stepping up to meet those needs. The RRSC neighborhood plan was an opportunity for codifiable changes to move our two neighborhoods closer to the future they envisioned for themselves and we jumped at the chance to do that. We were all in and we brought our networks with us. We stood in front of grocery stores, held listening sessions in our houses, met with neighbors in restaurants and pubs, went to our affordable housing complexes to host informational sessions, attended local high school classes to engage our youth, held meetings in Spanish for our non-native English speakers, went door to door to every business along our corridor, and staffed forums in our high school attended by hundreds. At every juncture we came back to you with reports of our engagement and plan progress and at each of those you praised our work. This plan's process would have to be supported by an unprecedented level of collaboration between the residents, the city, the county and the special districts. We were encouraged to dream big and ask for what we wanted, then work to make it so. Over the last 6.5 years we have done just that and continued to foster that sense of collaboration and trust with our neighbors -kind of like goodwill ambassadors bridging the municipal/resident distrust divide. We put ourselves in that uncomfortable position knowing that we had commitments from the city of Eugene to turn the work into real change. Hundreds of residents spent thousands of hours working to build trust and craft a future they could live in. Our dreams have been downsized through the process yet what remains of our code amendments carries the essence of what our neighbors want. Without these our work has been in vain and you will have not only undermined the work of your staff, you will have diminished the respectability of the volunteers with their neighbors. After all, we assured them this time it would be different, there would be an enforceable plan that reflected their vision. Only you can make it so and I encourage you to do that. We don't need another slick document with no teeth, instead give us the plan that has the coffee cup stains, the jelly smears, dog eared pages and post it note tags that never makes it to the bookshelf because we are always using it. Our bookshelves are already full. Thank you for your consideration im From: Alison Evans To: Eugene RR -SC Plan Subject: River Road Corridor Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 8:33:55 AM You don't often get email from alievans@icloud.com. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL ] To Whom It May Concern: We urge you to adopt the neighborhood plan, the action plan, and the code amendments proposed by the SCCO for the River Road/Santa Clara area. As residents of this area since 1995, we are disheartened by some of the changes noted already, such as a U -Haul depot on River Road across from our street, where for a brief time there was a supermarket. Why not more housing? Or another supermarket, thus reducing the ever -worsening traffic flow on River Road? The worst case scenario would be to see the River Road corridor become like what has happened downtown, specifically near and around the university campus. There, long-standing businesses have been razed to be replaced by hideous high rises with no green space around them, looming like giant walls above the sidewalks. Please help us keep the River Road area livable, and friendly to businesses, pedestrians, and bicycles. Remember, not all of us are in the "unincorporated" areas where where residents are paying lower taxes. We wonder whether that is some of the rationale behind decisions seeming to be made. We strongly object to seeing our very high property taxes be put toward developments that make our neighborhood less livable. Sincerely, Alison Evans and Keith Johnson 4092 Hampshire Ln. Eugene, OR 97404 Is From: Patricia Burson To: Euaene RR -SC Plan Subject: Written comments for Santa Clara neighborhood plan Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 5:56:18 PM IYou don't often get email from patriciaburson@hotmail.com. Learn why this is im oa rtant [EXTERNAL Hello, My name is Patricia Wiskow - I am a resident of Santa Clara. I live in a neighborhood my family and children love near Awbrey Park. I greatly appreciate the work the SCCO does to keep the interests of me and my neighbors at the attention of the City and the proposed changes happening in our area. Their work aligns with what I want to see happen in Santa Clara, and I do not have any better words than they do to express what we want for our neighborhood. Please add the language to the code amendments that they are requesting surrounding ground floor C-2 zones where multi story housing is being constructed. Thank you, 12 From: Karen A Lawrence To: Eugene RR -SC Plan Subject: Comments on development on River Road for joint public hearing on the plan on Tuesday, March 12th Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 5:42:05 PM [You don't often get email from karenla@uoregon.edu. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LeamAboutSenderldentification ] [EXTERNAL ] Comments on Housing Development on River Road, Eugene March 12, 2024 To the Eugene City Council and the Lane County Commissioners: Ten years ago I began volunteering with the Santa Clara/River Road Implementation and Planning Team (SCRRIPT), working on land use issues in our area. Over the years, the team held many neighborhood meetings in people's homes, at North Eugene Auditorium and in church meeting rooms, asking neighbors' opinions about the problems in our area and how they wanted River Road/Santa Clara to be developed in the future. Both individual neighbors and businesses on River Road were invited to participate on a voluntary basis. Using opinions gathered from the meetings with River Road/Santa Clara neighbors over many years, the design of our original corridor plan had far more detailed (lot specific) work on increased density, improved commercial business locations, transitions between intensity of uses, and incorporated planning for future transit along the corridor and major arterials. Since the change in state mandates, we are left with only the code changes suggested for adoption by staff. We have worked with staff and our neighbors in good faith for almost 7 years and we need these small code changes to move us toward the vision expressed by the people who live and work in the River Road/Santa Clara area. I want to express my opinion that existing C-2 lots along the corridor need to be designed to accommodate the vision expressed for years by the people who live in River Road/Santa Clara: The best case scenario will only be met by reducing building height in C-2 from 120 feet to 65 feet tall, adding design standards, and prohibiting new auto -oriented uses. Buildings limited to 65 feet with a requirement for ground floor commercial in C-2 zoned areas where multi -story housing is built are particularly important for two reasons: 1. The thousands of new residents who will live in these buildings will need services — grocery stores, doctors, small businesses, etc. 65 foot buildings with ground floor commercial services is the only feasible solution to ameliorating the massive influx of cars on River Road and Beltline. The massive influx of traffic on the only two arterials in our area, River Road and Beltline, can be abated if people shop locally and use local services. 13 2. The imposing height of 120 foot buildings with no associated commercial services would not allow River Road/Santa Clara to develop in a manner consistent with the the community. A requirement for ground floor commercial in C-2 zoned areas where multi -story housing is built will move us closer to walkable neighborhoods, help us accommodate a significant increase in density, and develop in a manner consistent with Envision Eugene and the Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities guidelines. Thank you, Karen Lawrence 4752 Wendover Street Eugene, OR 97404 14 From: Hans Wittig To: Eugene RR -SC Plan Subject: RR/SC Neighborhood Plan Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 4:56:37 PM IYou don't often get email from hppwittig@gmail.com. Learn why this is im oa rtant [EXTERNAL I am writing in support of the NP with the recommended code amendments. I have been serving as a CAC member for River Road for most of this process.This truly meets the interests of the community and all of the outreach we have done over the last 7 years. Any modifications to the proposed plan will further erode the interest of folks to work on such projects in the future. Hans Wittig River Road CAC 15 From: Sarah Steindorf To: Euaene RR -SC Plan Subject: Testimony on River Road -Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 4:55:00 PM You don't often get email from steiny4444@gmail.com. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL ] Dear Council Members, My name is Sarah Steindorf and this is my testimony on the River Rd/Santa Clara neighborhood action plan. As a young person, I know there's nothing to do in this part of town. There are parks, but they're underdeveloped. There are businesses, but not enough are local and I can't get to them easily without a car. I still see a lot of the streets I walk on not pedestrian friendly, there are no sidewalks, and I feel unsafe while walking my dog on them. The development of Santa Clara has been overseen by a plan that is decades old. We need new updates to urban development that in neighborhoods I've grown up with all my life. This plan is not a threat to any of the businesses along River Road and will help all community members have a greater sense of partnership. The plan is set up so that all community input will be implemented and taken into account in every step of the way. Amendments and changes can and will be part of the process, as they have been since the conception and development of this plan. This plan will not exclude anybody and will prove to be tremendous work with a high-quality payoff for future generations for decades to come. If this plan is implemented people will want to shop and move here, rather than using the Santa Clara area as a last resort. I remember the Santa Clara Community Organization coming to our school, North Eugene High School, and asking the Ecology Club what they would like to see in our neighborhoods in 2016. Nobody has asked me what I wanted to see in my city before, and it was the first time I realized that things could be different from what they are now. Everyone has a voice and an opinion to make. Since then I've been to multiple SCCO and RRCO community outreach events and I've see how much first-hand the leaders and neighbors of this organization care about each other and believe in the plan they're suggesting. Please listen to the neighbors who want to see this plan put into place- the ones who see safety and community growth as a priority, where parks and harmonious Living can thrive as a model for this city. I truly believe this action plan will help the Santa Clara community. 16 From: ibelcher(c)lefn.ora To: Eugene RR -SC Plan Subject: River Road Community Organization Testimony for CA -23-0003 RIVER ROAD -SANTA CLARA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 3/'12/2024 Hea Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2024 4:35:10 PM Attachments: imaae001.ong imaae002.ona image003.Dna image004.png RRCO to council on no.docx You don't often get email from jbelcher@efn.org. Learn why this is important [EXTERNAL ] Please enter the attached testimony for the CA -23-0003 RIVER ROAD -SANTA CLARA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN 3/' 12/2024 Hearing (repeated below) Thank you. River Road Community Organization OW The River and Garden District Date: March 12, 2024 From: River Road Community Organization Executive Board To: RRSCPIan@)eugene-or.gov. Re: Testimony for River Road /Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan and Code Amendments Hearing before Eugene City Council and Lane County Commission Dear elected officials, We, the members of the River Road Community Organization Board, are writing in unanimous support of the Draft River Road/Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan being submitted by the Eugene Planning staff, the RR/SC Community Advisory Committee, and the River Road and Santa Clara community organizations. For the past seven years, our community and board members have engaged in this effort with enthusiasm and with the needs of our unique and fast-growing neighborhood in mind. The plan does not address all of the requirements outlined as part of the Envision Eugene initiative. However, we believe that the current draft should proceed through the adoption process, moving us forward from the refinement plan of 1986 that currently guides the development for our area. We are ready to partner with the City and County and are willing to accept some of the shortcomings of the document in order to proceed. While the new plan will define much of the direction for the neighborhood, the River Road Community Organization Board has identified three core areas of opportunity that were eliminated from the plan. As these are central to the desires of our community, we are committed as a board to continue to advocate for them to meet the needs of River Road residents. 1. No Parking Resolution for County Streets: Lane County controls 76% of River Road Local Streets (58x/0 of Santa Clara's) and they have little capacity to enforce on -street parking standards. The reduction in on- site parking requirements through the middle housing code amendments and other State standards means that our experience with parking overflow near ECCO housing will become more intense. Many of the county streets in our neighborhoods are not developed to urban standards and have limited capacity to accommodate the overflow parking almost certain to occur. Without someway to regulate on -street parking, further densification will lead to more unsafe streets in our neighborhoods. 17 Howard Meadows, an under construction Middle Housing development at Lake Drive just north of Howard Avenue, illustrates our concern. The project consists of 11-fourplex lots, appearing to have 2 on-site parking places each. The planned Safe Routes to School project to be built this summer will prohibit on -street parking on the south side of Howard Avenue. Howard Meadows residents with additional cars will be parking to the north on Rosewood Avenue which is a one -lane County Local Access Road with limited off-site parking opportunities. Eight other nearby streets are also under County jurisdiction with neither capacity nor authority to regulate parking. This and many other middle housing projects in our neighborhoods will likely result in parking conflicts for neighbors just like we have seen on the streets surrounding ECCO apartments off River Road. We request that the City Council direct the City Manager to explore and report to the Council potential solutions to the parking issues in our Neighborhoods as part of the Climate Friendly and Equitable Community Parking Reform process. 2. Potential Loss of Commercial Properties: When we asked our neighbors to set goals for the Neighborhood Plan, they placed strong emphasis on having more commercial opportunities, especially restaurants, gathering spots & groceries. They also called for 20 Minute Neighborhoods-- businesses they could easily walk or bike to. However, the staff decision to eliminate the proposed Corridor Mixed Use zone which would have required commercial use on the ground floor leaves the majority of our current commercial properties in the C-2 Community Commercial Zone. This zone allows 100% of the properties in the zone to be residential with no commercial. The economic study included in Sera Architect's River Road Corridor Study showed that economic demand for housing is high and commercial use is low. Without regulation requiring it or some kind of incentive to encourage it, the commercial facilities we currently have may well be replaced by multifamily housing that ironically will create an even greater need for the commercial properties they replace. At the February 20,2024 Council Public Hearing, staff presented proposed code to require that the building frontage for C-1 & C-2 Mixed -Use Residential Developments include either 80% or 60% of the ground floor be used for commercial or non-residential purposes1. We are requesting that similar language be adopted for C-2 buildings in River Road and Santa Clara. We also question why it is important to preserve commercial uses in C-2 when middle housing is a component of a building but not in the C-2 zoned properties in our neighborhoods likely developed at even higher density. We request that the City Council direct the City Manager to conduct a feasibility study to determine how to encourage more commercial services in the River Road/Santa Clara area and report the results to the City Council for your consideration. 3. Need for Neighborhood Specific Regulations for the River Road Corridor: We continue to believe that 18 we need neighborhood -specific regulations to guide the development of the River Road corridor. We appreciate the C2 code changes proposed instead of a special area zone but we recommend that you reconsider a one -size -fits -all ordinance for all seven corridors, as proposed to be enacted in 2026. We wish to recognize the efforts of the Eugene Planning staff, the RRCO and SCCO boards, the Community Advisory Committee, and all of the members of our joint communities who have engaged with us over these past seven years to reach this milestone. It is our hope that we will continue to collaborate over the coming years as we work to implement the Action Plan and resolve our parking, commercial, and corridor issues. We request that the public record remain open for 7 days after the hearing for additional public testimony. Thank you for your consideration, /s/ River Road Community Organization Board Members Footnote: 1. (from City Council Agenda Page 72 February 20, 2024 Public Hearing - Item 4) 9.2161 Commercial Zone — Land Use and Permit Requirements Special Use Limitations: (6) In the C-2 zone, up to two dwellings are allowed in a structure if the ground floor of the structure is used for commercial or non-residential purposes consistent with Table 9.2161. Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed -Use Residential Developments C-1 C-2 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed -Use Residential Developments Minimum Percent of Building Street 80% 60% Frontage in Commercial Use. Building street frontage shall be measured along the length of the building at the ground level within the maximum front yard setback. As used herein, "commercial" includes any non- residential use occupying a space at least 15 feet deep from the street facade of the building, excluding parking areas and garages. Jon Belcher (he/him) jbelcherC�efn.org 19 RR River Road Community Organization coo. The River and Garden District Date: March 12, 2024 From: River Road Community Organization Executive Board To: RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov. Re: Testimony for River Road /Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan and Code Amendments Hearing before Eugene City Council and Lane County Commission Dear elected officials, We, the members of the River Road Community Organization Board, are writing in unanimous support of the Draft River Road/Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan being submitted by the Eugene Planning staff, the RR/SC Community Advisory Committee, and the River Road and Santa Clara community organizations. For the past seven years, our community and board members have engaged in this effort with enthusiasm and with the needs of our unique and fast-growing neighborhood in mind. The plan does not address all of the requirements outlined as part of the Envision Eugene initiative. However, we believe that the current draft should proceed through the adoption process, moving us forward from the refinement plan of 1986 that currently guides the development for our area. We are ready to partner with the City and County and are willing to accept some of the shortcomings of the document in order to proceed. While the new plan will define much of the direction for the neighborhood, the River Road Community Organization Board has identified three core areas of opportunity that were eliminated from the plan. As these are central to the desires of our community, we are committed as a board to continue to advocate for them to meet the needs of River Road residents. 1. No Parking Resolution for County Streets: Lane County controls 76% of River Road Local Streets (58% of Santa Clara's) and they have little capacity to enforce on -street parking standards. The reduction in on-site parking requirements through the middle housing code amendments and other State standards means that our experience with parking overflow near ECCO housing will become more intense. Many of the county streets in our neighborhoods are not developed to urban standards and have limited capacity to accommodate the overflow parking almost certain to occur. Without some way to regulate on -street parking, further densification will lead to more unsafe streets in our neighborhoods. 20 Howard Meadows, an under construction Middle Housing development at Lake Drive just north of Howard Avenue, illustrates our concern. The project consists of 11-fourplex lots, appearing to have 2 on-site parking places each. The planned Safe Routes to School project to be built this summer will prohibit on -street parking on the south side of Howard Avenue. Howard Meadows residents with additional cars will be parking to the north on Rosewood Avenue which is a one - lane County Local Access Road with limited off-site parking opportunities. Eight other nearby streets are also under County jurisdiction with neither capacity nor authority to regulate parking. This and many other middle housing projects in our neighborhoods will likely result in parking conflicts for neighbors just like we have seen on the streets surrounding ECCO apartments off River Road. We request that the City Council direct the City Manager to explore and report to the Council potential solutions to the parking issues in our Neighborhoods as part of the Climate Friendly and Equitable Community Parking Reform process. 2. Potential Loss of Commercial Properties: When we asked our neighbors to set goals for the Neighborhood Plan, they placed strong emphasis on having more commercial opportunities, especially restaurants, gathering spots & groceries. They also called for 20 Minute Neighborhoods-- businesses they could easily walk or bike to. However, the staff decision to eliminate the proposed Corridor Mixed Use zone which would have required commercial use on the ground floor leaves the majority of our current commercial properties in the C-2 Community Commercial Zone. This zone allows 100% of the properties in the zone to be residential with no commercial. The economic study included in Sera Architect's River Road Corridor Study showed that economic demand for housing is high and commercial use is low. Without regulation requiring it or some kind of incentive to encourage it, the commercial facilities we currently have may well be replaced by multifamily housing that ironically will create an even greater need for the commercial properties they replace. 21 At the February 20,2024 Council Public Hearing, staff presented proposed code to require that the building frontage for C-1 & C-2 Mixed -Use Residential Developments include either 80% or 60% of the ground floor be used for commercial or non-residential purposes1. We are requesting that similar language be adopted for C-2 buildings in River Road and Santa Clara. We also question why it is important to preserve commercial uses in C-2 when middle housing is a component of a building but not in the C-2 zoned properties in our neighborhoods likely developed at even higher density. We request that the City Council direct the City Manager to conduct a feasibility study to determine how to encourage more commercial services in the River Road/Santa Clara area and report the results to the City Council for your consideration. 3. Need for Neighborhood Specific Regulations for the River Road Corridor: We continue to believe that we need neighborhood -specific regulations to guide the development of the River Road corridor. We appreciate the C2 code changes proposed instead of a special area zone but we recommend that you reconsider a one -size -fits -all ordinance for all seven corridors, as proposed to be enacted in 2026. We wish to recognize the efforts of the Eugene Planning staff, the RRCO and SCCO boards, the Community Advisory Committee, and all of the members of our joint communities who have engaged with us over these past seven years to reach this milestone. It is our hope that we will continue to collaborate over the coming years as we work to implement the Action Plan and resolve our parking, commercial, and corridor issues. We request that the public record remain open for 7 days after the hearing for additional public testimony. Thank you for your consideration, /s/ River Road Community Organization Board Members Footnote: 22 Footnote: 1. (from City Council Agenda Page 72 February 20, 2024 Public Hearing - Item 4) 9.2161 Commercial Zone — Land Use and Permit Requirements Special Use Limitations: (6) In the C-2 zone, up to two dwellings are allowed in a structure if the ground floor of the structure is used for commercial or non-residential purposes consistent with Table 9.2161. Table 9.2161 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed -Use Residential Developments C-1 C-2 Commercial Uses Requirements in Mixed -Use Residential Developments Minimum Percent of Building Street 80% 60% Frontage in Commercial Use. Building street frontage shall be measured along the length of the building at the ground level within the maximum front yard setback. As used herein, "commercial" includes any non- residential use occupying a space at least 15 feet deep from the street facade of the building, excluding parking areas and garages. 23