Land Use Proposal, 1400 Cross Street, Eugene, Oregon <br />City Planning file number MA-20-0002, re-opened public comment <br />Written testimony for the Planning Commission by Fred Tepfer submitted on March 8, <br />2021: <br />My name is Fred Tepfer, and I live at 1380 Bailey Avenue in Eugene. I am submitting <br />the following written testimony in response to additional materials submitted recently by <br />the applicant. The applicant has provided a letter from their transportation engineering <br />consultant revising the calculations for the proposed trip cap, and reducing that cap <br />somewhat. <br />Given my limited expertise in this area, my comments are brief and mostly consist of <br />questions that I would like the Commission to consider. I'm also taking on face value the <br />land use code analysis that underlies these revised assumptions, assuming that staff is <br />better prepared than am I to assess whether the Eugene code would allow the proposed <br />development. <br />1. The worst-case trip generation exercise described in the letter is just that, an exercise <br />in increasing the trip cap to the highest level. I don't dispute that is what we should <br />expect, but I do wish to call into question the logic used in the analysis, and I contend that <br />there is no way that the building described could actually be built economically and <br />practically. There are five land uses in the analysis. By any stretch of the imagination, <br />these are all ground floor uses but one (Scientific and Education Research), yet there isn't <br />enough space for them to all occur on the ground without extreme measures. <br />Manufacturing paint and manufacturing paper products: both of these processes <br />involve great weight. After some looking around, I can't find a company in Oregon that <br />manufactures and warehouses paint or paper products other than on a ground floor. <br />These typically occur in tilt-up concrete warehouses. If there is an upper floor, it would <br />be a small mezzanine for offices, not two and three story buildings. I would be happy <br />to share the examples I found. <br />Car repair, paint and body shop: I know of only one multi-story car repair facility in <br />Oregon, and it was built more than a half century ago. It is simply not economical nor <br />practical (from a car circulation perspective) to build these as multistory facilities. <br />Copy and print shop (accessory to paper product manufacturing): These are retail <br />establishments, and all examples that I can find in Oregon (even aside from accessory <br />uses) are located on a ground floor, generally facing a major street. <br />