HomeMy WebLinkAbout23_11_28_2100 Batch4 TestimonyRiver Road-Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan
City File: MA 23-5, CA 23-3
County File: 509-PA23 -05532
Testimony Batch 4
Batch Information Date Range
Batch Number Page Count Start End Submissions
4 96 11/1/2023 11/23/2023
at 21:00 25
From To Date Time Attachments
Brent Hutchings Testimony 11/02/2023 14:38 1
Michael Reeder Testimony 11/03/2023 17:33 1
Brent Hutchings Testimony 11/06/2023 0:00
Patt Meeker Testimony 11/09/2023 14:45 1
Teresa Bishow Testimony 11/16/2023 9:54
Sam Rutledge Testimony 11/16/2023 13:00
Sandy Thoms Testimony 11/16/2023 13:00
Angela Gass Testimony 11/16/2023 13:38
Eleanor and John Lepinski Testimony 11/16/2023 13:38
Eleanor and John Lepinski Testimony 11/18/2023 12:10
Tiffany Edwards Testimony 11/21/2023 15:12
Teresa Bishow Testimony 11/22/2023 15:46 1
David Illig Testimony 11/27/2023 10:14
Carol Schirmer Testimony 11/28/2023 9:43 1
Carol Schirmer Testimony 11/28/2023 9:46 1
Kate Perle Testimony 11/28/2023 13:06 1
Teresa Bishow Testimony 11/28/2023 14:17 1
Michael Reeder Testimony 11/28/2023 14:53 1
Jon Belcher Testimony 11/28/2023 15:56 1
Patt Meeker Testimony 11/28/2023 16:07 1
Patt Meeker Testimony 11/28/2023 16:08 1
Michael Reeder Testimony 11/28/2023 18:18 1
Andrée Phelps Testimony 11/28/2023 18:23 2
Kathryn Perle Testimony 11/28/2023 19:06 1
Kevin Journey Testimony 11/28/2023 19:19 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:. Journey
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:RRSC testimony
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 7:19:04 PM
Attachments:20231128_200646.PDF
[EXTERNAL ]
Please except, thanks Kevin
1
2
From:Kathryn Perle
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:for EPC regarding the RRSC nhood plan
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 7:06:12 PM
Attachments:EPC personal.docx
[EXTERNAL ]
Please submit attached testimony for the EPC
3
Nov 28, 2023
Eugene Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to you, as an independent resident of Santa Clara, in support of the River
Road/Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan.
I have been heartily involved with all things Santa Clara for over 25 years. Although there has
been significant change in our area in regard to increased density and infill development for
primarily R-1 housing, we have not yet seen accompanying commercial development to meet
the daily needs of those residents.
We have ample quantities of commercially zoned land but the development of those parcels
has, for the most part, been limited to uses that provide developers with a return on
investment but provide none of the day to day goods and services that our residents need to be
able to lead lives that don’t involve automotive traffic for every need. We have precious few
restaurants, one bar, no coffee shops, bakeries, small locally owned shops, and not one venue
that has pedestrian oriented outdoor seating of any kind.
I do not place the blame for this situation entirely at your feet, but I know that if we expect
“market forces” to bring us any change to this situation I’ll be long dead when it happens.
Current zoning code permits the use of commercially zoned lots along our corridor to be
developed with uses (like automotive lots and self-storage) that employ very few people and
require minimal investment by developers-that’s “market forces” at work. The outcome is that
redevelopment of these same lots will take much longer to happen all the while undermining
the community’s goals for greenhouse gas reduction.
Santa Clara already has 3 self-storage facilities tying up most of the commercially zoned land in
the northern half of our neighborhood. We have become the destination for other
neighborhoods’ excess belongings while depriving ourselves of any opportunity for
development that will create social capital, community cohesion, and increased neighborhood
resilience. It’s not just lamentable, it is the poorest use of these resources and we have the
opportunity to limit these poor choices with our neighborhood plan.
I implore you to look at the proffered code changes through the eyes of the residents that
created them. All of these items were the product of hundreds of residents sharing their
experiences of their neighborhood-precisely why it’s a neighborhood plan.
With thanks for your consideration,
Kate Perle
4
From:Andree Phelps
To:DOMINGO Elena M
Cc:lewis rucker
Subject:Written Testimony for Rucker Properties, LLC owner of 121 River Avenue files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 and County
File 509-PA23-05532
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 6:23:28 PM
Attachments:Site Plan Rucker v.3 11.28.23.pdf
Rucker_PCLetter_2023_11#2.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Ms. Domingo:
Please place into the record for the above reference case the following written testimony and
associated Site Plan. Thank you and have a good evening.
Andrée Phelps
(she/her)
Andrée Phelps Law, LLC
375 W. 4th Ave, Suite 204
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541-221-1431
Email: andree@andreephelpslaw.com
Notices: This message, including attachments, may be confidential and contain information
protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine or is otherwise privileged.
If you are not the addressee, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this
message in any way is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you have received this transmittal in error. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please notify us immediately by telephone or email.
5
RIVER AVENUEMajor Collector20'BuildingAdditionDoesn't meetmaximum setbackon street frontage.All 3 proposed building walls requiredto have windows, colonnades, arcadesor main entrances every 20 linear feet.All windows shall have VLT.All 3 proposed building walls requiredto have windows, colonnades, arcadesor main entrances every 20 linear feet.All windows shall have VLT.138'BuildingAdditionBA15' max5' min.Doesn't meet 80%of all street facingfacades withinmaximum frontyard setback.C PROJECT NAME:Phone: 541.234.5108PO Box 10424SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC., LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND LANDUSE PLANNING EXPRESSLY RESERVE ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT ANDOTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TOBE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNERWHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTYWITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OFSCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC.IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A THIRDPARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC.HARMLESS.SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLCEugene, Oregon 97440RUCKERPROPERTIES, LLCSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEPHASEDRAWN BYDATECHECKED BYPROJECT ADDRESSPROJECT ADDRESSPROJECT NAMEcescesL1.0N0 25 50 100
Scale: 1" = 50' - 0"Landscape Architecture + Land Use Planning2023 SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC SITE PLANRucker Properties, LLC121 River AvenueEugene, OR 97404Land Use Code Review11.28.23LAND USE CODE (draft)A. Proposed: Building addition as continuation off of existing front facade. Attemptsto meet proposed setbacks requirements.EC 9.2170 activated due to: 1) Increase length of street facing building facade bymore than 100% and 2) any building addition on C-2 property.·Part of addition within setback.·Cannot meet 80% of facade within maximum front yard setback.·Existing driveway access blocked.·Potential non-conforming structure status.·Possible Adjustment Review for EC 9.2170-(4)(c) - portion of building outside max setback.-(4)(c)(3) - not possible for 80% of addition to be within min-max setback area.-(13) - windows not conducive to security and cost concerns.B. Proposed: Building addition at back of lot to maximize site layout and access offof River Avenue.EC 9.2170 activated due to: 1) Increase length of street facing building facade bymore than 100% and 2) any building addition on C-2 property.·No part of addition within setback.·Cannot meet 80% of facade within front yard setback.·Potential non-conforming structure status.·Possible Adjustment Review for EC 9.2170-(4)(b) and (4)(c) - entire addition outside min and max setback area. Situated more than 100 feet from street frontage.-(4)(c)(3) - 0% located within setbacks.-(13) - security and cost concerns.POTENTIAL CONFLICTSEC 9.1230 Legal Nonconforming Structure. A structure that was legally established but no longer conforms to alldevelopment standards of this land use code (such as height or setbacks).(2) A legal nonconforming structure may be altered to bring the structure closer to compliance with existingregulations, but shall not be altered in a manner that increases its nonconformity.EC 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards(4) Setbacks(4)(b) Minimum front yard setback stated in Tab;e 9.2170 Commercial Zone General Building Height andSetback Standards, shall apply only to new buildings and any building addition that increases thelength of the building facade facing a street, internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street . ..by at least 100%(4)(c) Maximum front yard setback . . . . . shall apply only to new buildings and any building addition thatincreases the length of the building facade facing a street, internal accessway, private drive, orshopping street . .by at least 100%.(4)(c)3. On properties zoned C-2 and located with the city limits of City of Eugene and the RR-SCNeighborhood Plan Area . . . a minimum of 80% of all street facing facades must be within maximumfront yard setback or orientation to internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street . . .(13) River Road/Santa Clara Specific Standards. The following standards apply to new buildings and anybuilding additions on properties zoned C-2 and located within the city limits of the City of Eugene andthe RR-SC Neighborhood Plan Area . .(b)River Road/Santa Clara Building Walls/Window Coverage2. All windows shall have a minimum Visible Light Transmission (VLT) of 0.6 or higher.3. A blank length of wall of more than 20 linear feet is prohibited along any facade, Windows,arcades, colonnades or main entrances can be used to address this standard.6
Andrée Phelps Law, LLC
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 204
Eugene, OR 97401
Andrée Phelps • Attorney at Law
Andrée Phelps Law, LLC
541.221.1431
andree@andreephelpslaw.com
November 28, 2023
To: Eugene Planning Commission & Lane County Planning Commission
c/o Elena Domingo
Eugene Planning Division
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Via Email: RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov
Re: River Road – Santa Clara (RRSC) Proposed Building Code Amendments
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Please file into the record this second letter on behalf of my clients, Lewis Rucker and Rucker
Properties, LLC, owner of 121 River Avenue.1 Although my client is appreciative of the support
voiced during the November 14 Eugene Planning Commission Deliberations to carve out the area
between the Beltline and River Avenue from the proposed C-2 use prohibitions, my client continues
to be highly concerned about implementation of the proposed C-2 building code amendments
especially as the proposed C-2 building code amendments (aside from building height) were not
discussed during the November 14 meeting.
As is evident from the attached Site Plan, there is ample space on the property and any subsequent
tenant or owner of 121 River Avenue would likely be interested in either building an addition or
building a new structure on site. However, if the building codes are implemented as proposed, it will
put in peril the many years of investment my client has expended on this property and will put into
question the long-term viability of the property as expansion of business will likely be limited due to
the proposed building codes limiting building additions and new buildings and requiring a
“commercial building look” that is not conducive to River Avenue.
In the interest of brevity, let us only consider how the building code amendments could affect two
hypothetical building additions at 121 River Avenue.
1 Property is identified as Assessor’s Map 17-04-13-22, Tax Lot 1000.
7
• 2 of 4 •
Andrée Phelps • Attorney at Law
Andrée Phelps Law, LLC
541.221.1431
andree@andreephelpslaw.com
I. The Proposed Building Code Amendments Create Security Concerns requiring VLT
Windows, Requires Architectural Features Every 20 Feet that are Arbitrary and
Costly, and Compels a “Commercial Building Look” that is not Conducive to Many
Existing Businesses Located in the River Avenue Area.
The 121 River Avenue property is zoned C-2. The single existing onsite structure was built in 1979;
the building is a rectangular-shaped, one-story building that is situated along the eastern border of the
property. The length of the River Avenue facing façade of the building is approximately 35 feet.
As the proposed code is written, any building addition constructed on C -2 property triggers the
Building Walls/Window Coverage standards requiring all windows to have Visible Light
Transmission of 0.6 or higher and that any blank wall of more than twenty (20) feet must have either
windows or other architectural designs elements along any façade, even facades not facing the street.
In addition, any building addition that increases the building façade facing a street by at least 100%
triggers the proposed minimum and maximum front yard setbacks of between five (5) and fifteen
(15) feet as well as the standard that 80% of that façade addition must be located within the setback
area.
There are two hypothetical building additions that are outlined on the attached Site Plan. Proposed
Building Addition A attempts to meet the minimum and maximum setback requirements by extending
the existing River Avenue building façade. Building A increases the existing street facing façade of
35 feet by more than 100% and so must meet the setback standards. An extension of the existing
façade only has a portion of the addition located within the setback. The addition also cannot meet
the 80% of the façade within the setback standard. It should also be noted that the addition now blocks
the existing access driveway. Furthermore, any building addition must meet the building walls and
window coverage standards. Here, this standard requires approximately eleven (11) windows,
colonnades, arcades or main entrances be included on the three Building Addition A façades. Five
(5) of these architectural features would be located on the façade facing Randy Pape Beltline.
Windows of 0.6 VLT or more would only be a security concern at this site. Due to not being able to
meet the proposed building code standards for hypothetical Building Addition A, adjustment review
would likely be required for multiple standards.
The second hypothetical building addition, Building Addition B, is an attempt to maintain existing
driveway access and to maximize use of property and size of addition. However, this street facing
façade is wholly located outside the setback area and is more than 100 feet away from River Avenue;
therefore, the addition cannot meet the setback standards. Furthermore, any building addition must
meet the building walls and window coverage standards. Here, this standard requires approximately
fifteen (15) windows colonnades, arcades or main entrances on the three addition façades. Eight (8)
of these architectural features would be located on the façade facing Randy Pape Beltline. Windows
of 0.6 VLT or more would only be a security concern at this site. Due to not being able to meet the
proposed building code standards for hypothetical Building Addition B, adjustment review would
likely be required for multiple standards.
8
• 3 of 4 •
Andrée Phelps • Attorney at Law
Andrée Phelps Law, LLC
541.221.1431
andree@andreephelpslaw.com
The type of “commercial building look” the building code is attempting to achieve, buildings along
the street with see-through windows and architectural features, is just not suitable for River Avenue
businesses. The proposed building code standards just do not make sense for the commercial
properties that line River Avenue.
II. Reliance on Adjustment Review is NOT the Answer.
Asking that business owners rely on the adjustment review process to “fix” the building code is not
the answer.
For example, at 121 River Avenue, the existing structure has been used for the same business for over
30 years. It is highly feasible that a replacement business would require a building addition to meet
business needs. As any building addition on the site would trigger the proposed building code, the
tenant most likely will be required to apply for an adjustment review for multiple standards. The
adjustment review criteria are as follows:2
The [EC standard] may be adjusted if the proposal achieves all of the following:
1. Contributes to the continuity of building facades along the street.
2. Creates an attractive pedestrian environment along all adjacent streets
3. Is compatible with adjacent development. (emphasis mine)
Again, in the interest of brevity, let us only consider the highly discretionary criteria #1 above in
relation to 121 River Avenue: “Contributes to the continuity of building facades along the street.”
Due to the commercial and industrial history of the street, the building facades along River Avenue
are, understandably, variable. The two buildings to the west of 121 River Avenue are similar in nature
to the existing building with north/south oriented triangular buildings. The building to the east is
located away from River Avenue at the back of the property with entrances along the western façade.
As can easily be imagined, requiring an adjustment review that attempts to support that a building
addition contributes to the continuity of building facades on River Avenue would make a prospective
buyer or tenant wary as the criteria are highly discretionary, the process is costly, time consuming,
fraught with uncertainty, and carries with it the threat that a denial will limit expansion of business.
III. Conclusion: The North Side of River Avenue Should be Carved out from
Proposed Building Code Amendments as well as Proposed Prohibited Use
Amendments.
If implemented, the proposed building code amendments will adversely impact a viable commercial
area of local businesses where the existing commercial activity is appropriate and has been thriving
for decades. The code amendments will particularly affect River Avenue businesses by restricting the
ability of businesses to renovate and expand, decrease building security, increase costs related to
2 For EC 9.2170(4)(b) and (4)(c), relating to minimum and maximum front yard setbacks, applicable adjustment review
is found under EC 9.8030(2). For EC 9.2170(13)(b)(4) and (13)(c)(1), relating to building walls/window coverage and
weather protection respectively, applicable adjustment review is found under draft EC 9.8030(39). Although EC
9.8030(2) has additional subsections relating to specific zones, EC 9.8030(2) and (39) have identical applicable language.
9
• 4 of 4 •
Andrée Phelps • Attorney at Law
Andrée Phelps Law, LLC
541.221.1431
andree@andreephelpslaw.com
architectural requirements and adjustment review, and cause uncertainty for subsequent businesses
or owners. We urge the Eugene Planning Commission to carve out River Avenue from the proposed
prohibited use amendments and the proposed building code amendments.
Respectfully submitted,
Andree N. Phelps
Attorney for Lewis Rucker and Rucker Properties, LLC
Attachment: Site Plan
10
From:Micheal Reeder
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan; DOMINGO Elena M
Cc:KLOOS Bill (SMTP); Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com); PATT MEEKER; Andree Phelps; Teresa Bishow
Subject:RE: Written Testimony for Clemens Marina | City files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County file 509-PA23-05532 |
REVISED
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 6:18:04 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Reeder to PCs (Clemens Marina Post-hearing Testimony) 11-28-2023.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Good evening Elena:
I just noticed that my 4:05 pm email below was attached an earlier draft version of my clients’
letter. Please disregard that earlier version and omit it from the record. Please use the final version
attached to this email instead. I apologize for any confusion.
Respectfully,
Mike
Office: (541) 225-8777 | oregonlanduse.com
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205, Eugene, OR 97401
NOTICE: This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the message.
From: Micheal Reeder
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 4:05 PM
To: Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov>; DOMINGO Elena M <EDomingo@eugene-
or.gov>
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP) <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>; Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com)
<jbhomes4@msn.com>; PATT MEEKER <pattmeeker@gmail.com>; Andree Phelps
<andree@andreephelpslaw.com>; Teresa Bishow <Teresa@bishowconsulting.com>
Subject: Written Testimony for Clemens Marina | City files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County file 509-
PA23-05532
Good afternoon Elena –
Please find attached my clients’ post-hearing, open record letter and attachment for the
Planning Commissions. Please include into the record on this matter.
Respectfully,
11
Mike
Office: (541) 225-8777 | oregonlanduse.com
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205, Eugene, OR 97401
NOTICE: This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the message.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
From:PATT MEEKER
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 4:07:55 PM
Attachments:20231128161551706.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Hello Again
I have a few more signatures on the petition in opposition I would like to be recorded
Thank You
--
Patt
19
20
21
22
23
24
From:PATT MEEKER
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 4:07:38 PM
Attachments:20231128161551706.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Hello
I have a few more signatures to send your way
--Thank You
Patt
25
26
27
28
29
30
From:jbelcher@efn.org
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Testimony for Land Use Amendments MA 23- 005 & CA 23- 003
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 3:56:30 PM
Attachments:20231128 RR-SC Plan Testimony to Eugene Planning Commission.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Please accept the attached testimony from the River Road Community Organization’s Executive
Committee.
Thank you.
Jon Belcher (he/him) jbelcher@efn.org
31
River Road Community Organization
The River and Garden District
Date: November 28, 2023
From: River Road Community Organization Executive Board
To: Eugene Planning Commission
Re: Testimony for Land Use Amendments MA 23- 005 & CA 23- 003
Dear Commissioners,
The following testimony is submitted for your consideration after a unanimous vote of the River Road
Community Organizations Executive Board on November 17, 2023.
We appreciate and would like to respond to recent deliberations about the River Road/Santa
Clara Neighborhood Plan. Several questions have been raised about specific details, their
source and function. We, the community advisory committee (CAC), have been deeply
connected to the iterative development of this plan since 2017, and would like to clarify some
of these points.
During many conversations, workshops, and community meetings, our neighbors repeatedly
mentioned the need for our neighborhoods to achieve a more vibrant pedestrian centered
pattern of development and reduce the need for residents to travel to other parts of the city to
meet basic needs and to create local connections. The code changes are rooted in the work
done for the River Road Corridor Plan, a delve into transit-oriented design for River Road from
the Chambers Connector to the Santa Clara transit station funded by a Federal Transit
Authority grant. This was added to our neighborhood planning process in 2019 to help us
achieve a level of detail around land use adjacent to River Road that would move us toward
the goals stated above.
The outcome of this work created two new zoning designations within the proposed transit
zone with lot specific changes that would allow taller buildings along the corridor and provide
transitions to the adjacent R-1 lots further into the neighborhood. The intent was to
accommodate increased housing density while simultaneously creating more commercial
opportunities of a scale desired by residents to provide walkable, connected neighborhoods
with valuable commercial services. House Bill 2001 and the pandemic effectively derailed this
direction. Near the culmination of this project, the City of Eugene informed the CAC that there
would be no new neighborhood specific zoning or overlay zones available within the project
scope and timeline. Instead, the City would focus on city-wide zoning code changes for all the
corridors simultaneously at a later date. The Corridor Study highlighted neighborhood -specific
challenges to densification that make it unreasonable to expect a single set of criteria to fit
corridor diversity for such areas as Franklin Boulevard with high development potential,
Highway 99 which is primarily commercial, and River Road which is primarily residential. In
any case, the lessons learned will prove valuable as the corridor densification pr ocess is
initiated in the future.
32
City planning staff determined that our plan would not result in rezoning existing land, which
had been an understanding during more than three years of work. Without the two new zoning
designations that would have created a “string of pearls” to elegantly improve commercial
areas while retaining the residential character of River Road, the CAC were offered the blunt
instrument of neighborhood specific tweaks to existing code to achieve specific, important
goals for the RR corridor. There are hundreds of resident comments in the record that support
limiting uses on the C-2 land along the corridor to businesses that increase pedestrian traffic,
retain our neighborhood character, and provide basic goods and services to residents.
60’ height limit: Most of the commercially zoned area along the corridor is only one lot deep,
and abuts R-1 zoned land built out with single family detached houses. The existing code
provides little to no transition between C-2 and R-1 and the possibility that 120’ buildings would
be built adjacent to already developed R-1 was untenable. Without the new zoning or an
overlay, we would have no ability to ameliorate these problematic adjacencies. That is how
we arrived at the 60’ height limit along the corridor; this compromise represents an acceptance
of a great increase in the existing density of development, but guides it t owards more
compatibility with the adjacent already-built environment. Siting a ten-story building in an area
primarily occupied by R-1 housing can dramatically impact wind flow, and create serious loss
of sunlight and privacy over a significant number of existing homes1.
Proposed prohibited uses: There is limited commercially zoned land in the neighborhoods;
many of the lots along River Road offer prime opportunities for local business that support
connection, engagement, and provide daily needs. Currently, River Road is host to many car
lots and Santa Clara many storage facilities both of which have low foot traffic. There was no
offer from staff to differentiate between C-2 along the corridor or away from the corridor. In this
case, the carve out for properties along River Avenue is a reasonable compromise that allows
those businesses to plan for their future while still promoting uses desired by residents closer
to the anticipated increase in residential density.
Repeal of the RR/SC urban facilities plan: We support keeping the River Road Santa Clara
Urban Facilities Plan land use diagram, subarea maps, and policies that guide implementation
of those diagrams until the city adopts lot-specific zoning maps. Although those maps do not
have the clarity of lot-specific diagrams, they are more refined than the Metro Plan which
controls zoning city wide. Teresa Bishow’s Bishow’s River Road – Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan Land Use Decision Impact Analysis submitted 10/17/23 shows that the maps in
our current Urban Facilities Plan guided decisions of compliance 714 times to date.
Additionally, not all the policies in the RRSCUFP are relevant today. We ask to have the
opportunity to review and comment on which of the policies will be retained or deleted as we
move forward.
1 See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309269820_High-
Rise_Buildings_Aspects_and_Significant_Impacts_in_Urban_Areas
33
Incentives: Work done by consultants for the RR Corridor Study suggested that C-2 zoned
property along River Road will likely be developed with housing and not for commercial uses,
given the current market. This is an outright permitted use in existing C -2 zones and would
move the neighborhood farther from its goals instead of closer. We appreciate staff’s
suggestion that taller first floors may allow for later conversion to commercial usage, but
question whether that would be possible and/or feasible (for instance, load bearing walls
cannot be moved). We need tailored incentives to help develop the C -2 lots as mixed use with
commercial on the ground floor for local business development. We do not know what tools
will work and ask the Planning Commission for your expertise to help identify m echanisms and
opportunities to realize this goal.
Finally, we request you discuss the value of having the City find a way to enforce on -street
parking regulations on the numerous county streets in our two neighborhoods.
Commissioners have expressed interest in hearing from members of the CAC during the
Commission’s deliberations. The CAC co-chairs and other members are available to meet with
the Planning Commission or individual commissioners upon request.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jonathan (Jon) Belcher Co-Chair (541) 343 6695 jbelcher@efn.org
34
From:Micheal Reeder
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan; Teresa Bishow; DOMINGO Elena M
Cc:KLOOS Bill (SMTP); Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com); PATT MEEKER
Subject:RE: Written Testimony from Hewes Marine Co. & North River Boats | City files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County file
509-PA23-05532
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 2:52:59 PM
Attachments:image001.png
20231103121239303.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Good afternoon Elena:
Now that the Planning Commission record has been reopened, please confirm that the attached
two letters have been submitted into the record for consideration by the Planning Commission.
Many thanks!
Best,
Mike
Office: (541) 225-8777 | oregonlanduse.com
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205, Eugene, OR 97401
NOTICE: This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the message.
From: Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov>
Sent: Monday, November 6, 2023 12:06 PM
To: Micheal Reeder <mreeder@oregonlanduse.com>; Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-
or.gov>; Teresa Bishow <Teresa@bishowconsulting.com>; DOMINGO Elena M <EDomingo@eugene-
or.gov>
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP) <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>; Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com)
<jbhomes4@msn.com>; PATT MEEKER <pattmeeker@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Written Testimony from Hewes Marine Co. & North River Boats
Hi Mike,
This testimony has been received. However, it will not be provided to the Planning Commissions, as
the Planning Commission record closed on 10/31. It will be provided to City Council and the Board of
Commissioners for their consideration as the final decision-makers.
Thank you,
35
Elena Domingo | Associate Planner (she/her)City of Eugene | Community Planning and Design99 West 10th AvenueEugene OR 97401541-682-5002 From: Micheal Reeder <mreeder@oregonlanduse.com> Sent: Friday, November 3, 2023 5:33 PM
To: Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov>; Teresa Bishow
<Teresa@bishowconsulting.com>; DOMINGO Elena M <EDomingo@eugene-or.gov>
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP) <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>; Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com)
<jbhomes4@msn.com>; PATT MEEKER <pattmeeker@gmail.com>
Subject: Written Testimony from Hewes Marine Co. & North River Boats
[EXTERNAL 36
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP) <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>; Micheal Reeder
<mreeder@oregonlanduse.com>; Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com) <jbhomes4@msn.com>
Subject: RE: Testimony for 10/17 Hearing - Business Owner Letters and Petitions
This testimony has been received.
Elena
From: Teresa Bishow <Teresa@bishowconsulting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:39 AM
To: Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov>; DOMINGO Elena M <EDomingo@eugene-
or.gov>
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP) <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>; Mike Reeder
<mreeder@oregonlanduse.com>; Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com) <jbhomes4@msn.com>
Subject: Testimony for 10/17 Hearing - Business Owner Letters and Petitions
[EXTERNAL
37
38
39
From:Teresa Bishow
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:RRSC Plan & Code Amendments (City files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3)
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 2:17:00 PM
Attachments:Bishow Testimony 2023 11 28 w Site Plans.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Hi,
Please accept the attached testimony including a letter and two site plans.
Thank you,
Teresa
Teresa Bishow, AICP
Bishow Consulting LLC
375 West 4th Ave, Suite 204
P.O. Box 50721
Eugene, OR 97405
541-514-1029
www.bishowconsulting.com
40
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
375 West 4th Ave., Ste 204
P.O. Box 50721
Eugene, OR 97405
541-514-1029
teresa@bishowconsulting.com
November 28, 2023
Eugene Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
Sent Via E-mail: RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov
RE: RRSC PLAN & CODE AMENDMENTS (City Files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3)
This letter is written on behalf of Action Rent-All & Events, an existing locally-owned business
on River Avenue east of River Road.
Metro Plan Amendments
1. Support keeping the 1987 RRSC Urban Facilities Plan.
2. Support Metro Plan amendments except changes to Appendix B.
Eliminating the proposed changes to Appendix B will keep the 1987 RRSC Urban
Facilities Plan listed as a refinement plan and will not add the RRSC Neighborhood Plan.
The RRSC Neighborhood Plan is not a refinement plan . It does not contain policies or a
land use diagram that refine the Metro Plan.
RRSC Neighborhood Plan
1. Support adoption of the RRSC Neighborhood Plan with the addition of a tax lot specific
zoning map. Currently, Figure 1 titled “Neighborhood Plan Map” is a blend of existing
zoning and a vision for the future. Unlike the Eugene Zoning Map, the Neighborhood
Plan Map is not tax lot specific.
RRSC Code Amendments
1. Support postponing any amendments to the C-2 zone.
The proposed RRSC code amendments are arbitrary and do not adequately consider
the significant adverse impact to existing businesses and potential impacts to other
neighborhoods. The draft code amendments do not have any graphics illustrating the
standards making them very difficult to interpret.
2. Support reviewing the commercial zoning districts concurrent with the city -wide project to
create a tax lot specific city-wide land use diagram.
41
RRSC Plan & Code Changes Page 2 of 4
Bishow Testimony November 28, 2023
3. If the Commission decides to recommend approval of the draft code amendments
amend as follows:
Prohibited Uses
Carve out River Avenue and include a map and list of tax lots in the adopting ordinance
that are not subject to the list of prohibited uses.
Building Height
Establish a maximum building height of at least 65 feet.
Do not support having different maximum building heights based on ground level
commercial use. To be financially viable, buildings need to respond to changing market
conditions. A builder might seek financing to construct a mixed use building but be
unable to attract commercial tenants on the ground floor. The ground floor may end up
being used for housing or services exclusively for residents, such as recreational
amenities, mail service, or bike parking. The code should allow a maximum building
height regardless of use.
Minimum Front Yard Setbacks - EC 9.2170(4)(b)2c
Carve out River Avenue since this standard will not be applicable . Subsection 2c will
only apply to properties that have frontage on River Road .
Maximum Front Yard Setbacks- E 9.2170(4)(c)
Carve out River Avenue from subsections 3 and 6.
Subsection 3 will require a minimum of 80% of all street facing facades to be within a
maximum 15-foot setback or orientation to an internal accessway, private drive, or
shopping street constructed according to street type standards. This proposed change
will create a burden on existing businesses, hinder financing, and limit redevelopment
options. In addition, the draft code does not provide an exception for double frontage lots
such as those facing River Avenue and Randy Pape Beltline.
Subsection 6 will not be applicable to properties on River Avenue since it will only apply
to properties with frontage on River Road.
RRSC Specific Standards – EC 9.2170(13)
Carve our River Avenue as there are no properties zoned C -2 abutting R-1 properties.
Moreover, standards related to building walls, window coverage, and weather protection
will cause adverse impacts to existing businesses, decrease employment growth, and
are not needed to achieve neighborhood goals.
Currently, commercial standards for exterior walls and windows only apply to new
commercial buildings with 25,000 square feet or more of floor area. The RRSC specific
42
RRSC Plan & Code Changes Page 3 of 4
Bishow Testimony November 28, 2023
standards related to building walls and window coverage will apply to all new buildings
and all building additions on properties zoned C-2.
The staff report for the Eugene Planning Commission’s November 14 meeting included
Rowell Brokaw’s evaluation of draft code standards to require a minimum of 80% of the
street facing ground floor building façade to be built within the maximum front yard
setback and new Building Articulation standards. Rowell Brokaw stated , “The 80
percent frontage requirement precludes street-facing courtyard spaces that have proven
successful in other commercial districts and would meet the overall goals of activated,
pedestrian-oriented commercial development. . .It is our experience that Building
Articulation standards . . . add complexity to development but do not prevent bad desi gn.
They often work against the stated goal of the code to promote “cohesive architecture
that is visually appealing.” We recommend eliminating this section.” The revisions to
the draft code standards did not address these concerns.
Draft Code Amendments are Not Consistent with Envision Eugene
According to EC 9.8065, a code amendment shall be consistent with applicable statewide
planning goals, comprehensive plan, and adopted refinement plan.
In testimony dated October 3, 2023, I outlined why the draft code amendments are NOT
consistent with Statewide Planning Goal s and the draft RRSC Plan. In addition, the draft code
amendments are NOT consistent with Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan. The Plan states,
“New land use plans and changes to the City’s land use code and land use plans must be
consistent with the policies in the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan.” (page I-3)
The draft code amendments are not consistent with the policies below on page ED-4.
Policy 3.5 Business retention and expansion. Facilitate the retention and growth of
existing businesses in the community.
Policy 3.6 Responsible economic development. Support economic development
initiatives that reflect long -term priorities, improve community resilience to climate
change and natural hazards, improve energy efficiency or reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and enhance opportunities to borrow, rent, or otherwise make better use of
underutilized public and private assets.
Policy 3.7 Home-based and microenterprises. Promote the development of small,
locally-owned businesses that have minimal adverse impacts on their surrounding
neighborhoods.
The draft code amendments will substantially increase the cost of commercial development and
do not support business retention and expansion. The draft code amendments impose building
43
RRSC Plan & Code Changes Page 4 of 4
Bishow Testimony November 28, 2023
setbacks and building articulation standards that will hinder or prevent certain types of
businesses.
Action Rent-All & Events provides a sustainable business model to help protect the environment
by providing: 1) Shared use, 2) Repairability, 3) Resource use, 4) Reusability, and 5)
Recyclability. The business will be negatively impacted by new standards that prevent the
expansion of a potential non-conforming structure or will require excessive costs to comply with
new code standards. See attached site plans illustrating two scenarios to expand an existing
building and how the projects would conflict with the new code standards.
Action Rent-All & Events is transitioning away from gas powered equipment to battery powered
equipment. It is a slow process that requires additional space to store equipment, additional
technical training for employees, and education to customers on how to use battery powered
equipment. The C-2 zone prohibits outdoor display of merchandise except for certain items such
as large equipment. For Action Rent-All to transition away from use of fossil fuel, it requires an
increase in the building square footage to store medium and small battery powered rental
equipment. The draft code standards will prevent Action Rent-All from being able to expand.
The draft code amendments will create an excessive financial burden on small, locally -owned
businesses by imposing RRSC specific standards.
In closing, we urge the Planning Commission to recommend postponing adoption of the C-2
code amendments or at least carve out River Avenue.
Sincerely,
Teresa Bishow
Teresa Bishow, AICP
Attachments
Sheet L1.0 Scenario 1 Site Plan and Sheet L2.0 Scenario 2 by Schirmer Consulting LLC
cc: Client
Bill Kloos
Carol Schirmer
44
95' - 6"96'-0"33'318'-8"RANDY PAPE BELTLINERIVER AVENUEAll 3 proposed building walls requiredto have windows, colonnades, arcadesor main entrances every 20 linear feet.All windows shall have VLT.BuildingAdditionDoesn't meet maximum setback oneither street frontage.22'C PROJECT NAME:Phone: 541.234.5108PO Box 10424SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC., LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND LANDUSE PLANNING EXPRESSLY RESERVE ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT ANDOTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TOBE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNERWHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTYWITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OFSCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC.IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A THIRDPARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC.HARMLESS.SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLCEugene, Oregon 97440ACTION RENT-ALLSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEPHASEDRAWN BYDATECHECKED BYPROJECT ADDRESSPROJECT ADDRESSPROJECT NAMEcescesL1.0N0 25 50 100
Scale: 1" = 50' - 0"Landscape Architecture + Land Use Planning2023 SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC SITE PLANScenario 1Action Rent-All141 and 151 River AvenueEugene, OR 97404Land Use Code Review11.28.23EC 9.1230 Legal Nonconforming Structure. A structure that was legally established but no longer conforms toall development standards of this land use code (such as height or setbacks).(2) A legal nonconforming structure may be altered to bring the structure closer to compliancewith existing regulations, but shall not be altered in a manner that increases itsnonconformity.EC 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards(4) Setbacks(4)(c) Maximum front yard setback . . . . . shall apply only to new buildings and any buildingaddition that increases the length of the building facade facing a street, internal accessway,private drive, or shopping street . .by at least 100%.(4)(c)3. On properties zoned C-2 and located with the city limits of City of Eugene and the RR-SCNeighborhood Plan Area . . . a minimum of 80% of all street facing facades must be withinmaximum front yard setback or orientation to internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street. . .(13) River Road/Santa Clara Specific Standards. The following standards apply to newbuildings and any building additions on properties zoned C-2 and located within the citylimits of the City of Eugene and the RR-SC Neighborhood Plan Area . .(b) River Road/Santa Clara Building Walls/Window Coverage2. All windows shall have a minimum Visible Light Transmission (VLT) of 0.6 or higher.3. A blank length of wall of more than 20 linear feet is prohibited along any facade,Windows, arcades, colonnades or main entrances can be used to address thisstandard.LAND USE CODE (draft)A. Proposed: Building additionIncrease length of street facing building facade by more than 100%.·Can't meet maximum setback of 15'.·Can't meet 80% of street facing facades within maximum front yardsetback.B. Proposed: Building additionAny building addition on C-2.·Windows, including minimum VLT requirements, are not conducive tocertain businesses.·Windows not conducive to meet security concerns.·Adding architectural features every 20 feet on all 3 new sides is botharbitrary and costly. It isn't about design or aesthetics. It is a formulathat doesn't acknowledge the context.Code Conflict: Potential Legal Nonconforming Structure.Potential Adjustment Review (Cost, delay, grounds for appeal).Recommendation: Exempt or carve out River Avenue Properties.CONFLICTS45
RANDY PAPE BELTLINERIVER AVENUEBuildingAddition25'259'All 2 proposed building walls requiredto have windows, colonnades, arcadesor main entrances every 20 linear feet.All windows shall have VLT.Doesn't meet maximum setback onstreet frontage.C PROJECT NAME:Phone: 541.234.5108PO Box 10424SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC., LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND LANDUSE PLANNING EXPRESSLY RESERVE ITS COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT ANDOTHER PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THESE PLANS. THESE PLANS ARE NOT TOBE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNERWHATSOEVER, NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO A THIRD PARTYWITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OFSCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC.IN THE EVENT OF UNAUTHORIZED REUSE OF THESE PLANS BY A THIRDPARTY, THE THIRD PARTY SHALL HOLD SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC.HARMLESS.SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLCEugene, Oregon 97440ACTION RENT-ALLSHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEPHASEDRAWN BYDATECHECKED BYPROJECT ADDRESSPROJECT ADDRESSPROJECT NAMEcescesL2.0N0 25 50 100
Scale: 1" = 50' - 0"Landscape Architecture + Land Use Planning2023 SCHIRMER CONSULTING, LLC SITE PLANScenario 2Action Rent-All141 and 151 River AvenueEugene, OR 97404Land Use Code Review11.28.23A. Proposed: Building addition (Small infill addition to existing building).Any building addition on C-2.·Windows, including minimum VLT requirements, are not conducive tocertain businesses.·Windows not conducive to meet security concerns.·Adding architectural features every 20 feet on both new sides is botharbitrary and costly. It isn't about design or aesthetics. It is a formulathat doesn't acknowledge the context.Code Conflict: Potential Legal Nonconforming Structure.Potential Adjustment Review (Cost, delay, grounds for appeal).Recommendation: Exempt or carve out River Avenue Properties.CONFLICTSEC 9.1230 Legal Nonconforming Structure. A structure that was legally established but no longer conforms toall development standards of this land use code (such as height or setbacks).(2) A legal nonconforming structure may be altered to bring the structure closer to compliancewith existing regulations, but shall not be altered in a manner that increases itsnonconformity.EC 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards(13) River Road/Santa Clara Specific Standards. The following standards apply to new buildingsand any building additions on properties zoned C-2 and located within the city limits of theCity of Eugene and the RR-SC Neighborhood Plan Area . .(b) River Road/Santa Clara Building Walls/Window Coverage2. All windows shall have a minimum Visible Light Transmission (VLT) of 0.6 or higher.3. A blank length of wall of more than 20 linear feet is prohibited along any facade,Windows, arcades, colonnades or main entrances can be used to address thisstandard.LAND USE CODE (draft)46
From:Kathryn Perle
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:testimony for EPC
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 1:05:43 PM
Attachments:RRCO to EPC on nhood plan (4) FINAL.docx
[EXTERNAL ]
Please submit attached testimony for the EPC regarding the River Road/Santa Clara
neighborhood plan.
Many thanks, Kate Perle
47
To the Eugene Planning Commission,
We appreciate and would like to respond to recent deliberations about the River Road/Santa Clara
Neighborhood Plan. Several questions have been raised about specific details, their source and
function. We, the community advisory committee (CAC), have been deeply connected to the iterative
development of this plan since 2017, and would like to clarify some of these points.
During many conversations, workshops, and community meetings, our neighbors repeatedly
mentioned the need for our neighborhoods to achieve a more vibrant pedestrian centered pattern of
development and reduce the need for residents to travel to other parts of the city to meet basic
needs and to create local connections. The code changes are rooted in the work done for the River
Road Corridor Plan, a delve into transit-oriented design for River Road from the Chambers Connector
to the Santa Clara transit station funded by a Federal Transit Authority grant. This was added to our
neighborhood planning process in 2019 to help us achieve a level of detail around land use adjacent
to River Road that would move us toward the goals stated above.
The outcome of this work created two new zoning designations within the proposed transit zone with
lot specific changes that would allow taller buildings along the corridor and provide transitions to the
adjacent R-1 lots further into the neighborhood. The intent was to accommodate increased housing
density while simultaneously creating more commercial opportunities of a scale desired by residents
to provide walkable, connected neighborhoods with valuable commercial services. House Bill 2001
and the pandemic effectively derailed this direction. Near the culmination of this project, the City of
Eugene informed the CAC that there would be no new neighborhood specific zoning or overlay zones
available within the project scope and timeline. Instead, the City would focus on city-wide zoning
code changes for all the corridors simultaneously at a later date. The Corridor Study highlighted
neighborhood-specific challenges to densification that make it unreasonable to expect a single set of
criteria to fit corridor diversity for such areas as Franklin Boulevard with high development potential,
Highway 99 which is primarily commercial, and River Road which is primarily residential. In any case,
the lessons learned will prove valuable as the corridor densification process is initiated in the future.
City planning staff determined that our plan would not result in rezoning existing land, which had
been an understanding during more than three years of work. Without the two new zoning
designations that would have created a “string of pearls” to elegantly improve commercial areas while
retaining the residential character of River Road, the CAC were offered the blunt instrument of
neighborhood specific tweaks to existing code to achieve specific, important goals for the RR corridor.
There are hundreds of resident comments in the record that support limiting uses on the C-2 land
along the corridor to businesses that increase pedestrian traffic, retain our neighborhood character,
and provide basic goods and services to residents.
60’ height limit: Most of the commercially zoned area along the corridor is only one lot deep, and
abuts R-1 zoned land built out with single family detached houses. The existing code provides little to
no transition between C-2 and R-1 and the possibility that 120’ buildings would be built adjacent to
already developed R-1 was untenable. Without the new zoning or an overlay we would have no
ability to ameliorate these problematic adjacencies. That is how we arrived at the 60’ height limit
along the corridor; this compromise represents an acceptance of a great increase in the existing
density of development, but guides it towards more compatibility with the adjacent already-built
48
environment. Siting a ten-story building in an area primarily occupied by R-1 housing can dramatically
impact wind flow, and create serious loss of sunlight and privacy over a significant number of existing
homes1.
Proposed prohibited uses: There is limited commercially zoned land in the neighborhoods; many of
the lots along River Road offer prime opportunities for local business that support connection,
engagement, and provide daily needs. Currently, River Road is host to many car lots and Santa Clara
many storage facilities both of which have low foot traffic. There was no offer from staff to
differentiate between C-2 along the corridor or away from the corridor. In this case, the carve out for
properties along River Avenue is a reasonable compromise that allows those businesses to plan for
their future while still promoting uses desired by residents closer to the anticipated increase in
residential density.
Repeal of the RR/SC urban facilities plan: We support keeping the River Road Santa Clara Urban
Facilities Plan land use diagram, subarea maps, and policies that guide implementation of those
diagrams until the city adopts lot-specific zoning maps. Although those maps do not have the clarity
of lot-specific diagrams, they are more refined than the Metro Plan which controls zoning city wide.
Teresa Bishow’s River Road – Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan Land Use Decision Impact Analysis
submitted 10/17/23 shows that the maps in our current Urban Facilities Plan guided decisions of
compliance 714 times to date. Additionally, not all the policies in the RRSCUFP are relevant today.
We ask to have the opportunity to review and comment on which of the policies will be retained or
deleted as we move forward.
Incentives: Work done by consultants for the RR Corridor Study suggested that C-2 zoned property
along River Road will likely be developed with housing and not for commercial uses, given the current
market. This is an outright permitted use in existing C-2 zones and would move the neighborhood
farther from its goals instead of closer. We appreciate staff’s suggestion that taller first floors may
allow for later conversion to commercial usage, but question whether that would be possible and/or
feasible (for instance, load bearing walls cannot be moved). We need tailored incentives to help
develop the C-2 lots as mixed use with commercial on the ground floor for local business
development. We do not know what tools will work and ask the Planning Commission for your
expertise to help identify mechanisms and opportunities to realize this goal.
Finally, we request you discuss the value of having the City find a way to enforce on-street parking
regulations on the numerous county streets in our two neighborhoods.
1 See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309269820_High-
Rise_Buildings_Aspects_and_Significant_Impacts_in_Urban_Areas
49
Commissioners have expressed interest in hearing from members of the CAC during the Commission’s
deliberations. The CAC co-chairs and other members are available to meet with the Planning
Commission or individual commissioners upon request.
Looking forward,
The River Road/Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan Community Advisory Committee
2017-2023
Kate Perle fccf@efn.org
Jon Belcher jbelcher@efn.org
Louisa de Heer louisa.deheer@gmail.com
Cameron Ewing cameron.ewing5@gmail.com
Hans Wittig hwittig@comcast.net
Beth Gerot bethgerot@comcast.net
Susan Kittleson susankittleson36@gmail.com
Rick Duncan rick@duncanbrown.com
Ed McMahon edmcmahon1970@gmail.com
Louie Vidmar lvidmar@gmail.com
Mary Leontovich maryleontovich@gmail.com
Jerry Finigan jerfinigan@comcast.net
50
From:Carol Schirmer
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:RRSC Plan: Code Criteria
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:45:57 AM
Attachments:Schirmer Testimony PC Code Criteria 11.28.23.pdf
You don't often get email from schirmer@schirmerconsulting.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL ]
Good morning:
Please accept the attached testimony into the record.
It includes a letter and air photos depicting existing businesses located in the C-2 zone.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
carol
Carol Schirmer
Schirmer Consulting, LLC
Planning and Landscape Architecture
PO Box 10424 | Eugene, OR 97440
PH: (541) 234-5108 | schirmer@schirmerconsulting.com
(Please note: This phone number does not receive text messages)
51
Schirmer Consulting, LLC · PO Box 10424, Eugene, OR 97440 · (541) 234-5108
Landscape Architecture + Land Use Planning
November 28, 2023
Eugene Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
Sent Via email: RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov
RE: RRSC Plan – code criteria and existing buildings/businesses
Attached is a document depicting all C-2 properties in the RRSC Plan area and their uses. I thought it might be
helpful for you to see in an air photo and know all of the businesses / building owners that will not be able to
comply with the proposed draft code criteria for development (new buildings or building additions) of the
property.
Except for Attachment E-2 the air photos match up with the pages in the other submittal (RRSC PLab – C-2
abutting R-1)
The first code criterion is part of the land use code (Chapter 9) and is not included in the review of this draft
code. It should be considered in the context of this review. The applicability of this criterion can be arbitrary and
subjective, and it will be important to provide clarity about how it may or may not apply to any building additions.
EC 9.1230 Legal Nonconforming Structure. A structure that was legally established but no longer conforms
to all development standards of this land use code (such as height or setbacks).
(2) A legal nonconforming structure may be altered to bring the structure closer to compliance
with existing regulations, but shall not be altered in a manner that increases its
nonconformity.
If the building can clear the ‘legal non-conforming structure’ hurdle it will be difficult for any building addition to
clear the maximum setback hurdle. So may of the buildings/businesses were developed under prior code criteria
that allowed buildings to be setback from the street and parking areas to front the street.
Here is the relevant draft code criteria that will affect these businesses.
EC 9.2170 Commercial Zone Development Standards
(4) Setbacks
(4)(b) Minimum front yard setback stated in Table 9.2170 Commercial Zone General
Building Height and Setback Standards, shall apply only to new buildings and any
building addition that increases the length of the building facade facing a street,
internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street . . .by at least 100%.
Maximum front yard setback . . . . . shall apply only to new buildings and any
building addition that increases the length of the building facade facing a street,
internal accessway, private drive, or shopping street . .by at least 100%.
(4)(c)3. On properties zoned C-2 and located with the city limits of City of Eugene and the
RR-SC Neighborhood Plan Area . . . a minimum of 80% of all street facing facades
must be within maximum front yard setback or orientation to internal accessway,
private drive, or shopping street . . .
(13) River Road/Santa Clara Specific Standards. The following standards apply to new
buildings and any building additions on properties zoned C-2 and located within the city
limits of the City of Eugene and the RR-SC Neighborhood Plan Area . .
52
RRSC Draft Plan – code criteria Page 2 of 2
November 28, 2023
Schirmer Consulting, LLC · PO Box 10424, Eugene, OR 97440 · (541) 234-5108
(b) River Road/Santa Clara Building Walls/Window Coverage
All windows shall have a minimum Visible Light Transmission (VLT) of 0.6 or higher.
Typically a building addition would be added to the existing building, not up on the street to meet the setback
requirements. Many businesses are not going to want to put windows on all sides of the addition for security
reasons and how they would affect the interior design/layout/function of their business. Colonnades and entries
are an arbitrary solution and do not address architectural design, the building use and the cost of these add ons.
One possible solution is an Adjustment Review, a costly, time consuming solution that exposes the applicant to
appeal.
One solution would be to exempt all existing buildings and their expansion from these requirements. These
requirements may be more appropriate for new buildings.
Please consider the affect of these code criteria on our local businesses and building owners. What are we
telling these business owners about doing business in Eugene?
Thank you for considering these remarks.
Sincerely,
Schirmer Consulting, LLC
Carol Schirmer
Principal
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
From:Carol Schirmer
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:RRSC Plan: Existing Zoning
Date:Tuesday, November 28, 2023 9:43:20 AM
Attachments:Schirmer Testimony PC Zoning 11.28.23.pdf
You don't often get email from schirmer@schirmerconsulting.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL ]
Good morning:
Please accept the attached testimony into the record.
It includes a letter and images depicting existing zoning (C-2 abutting R-1).
Thank you!
Sincerely,
carol
Carol Schirmer
Schirmer Consulting, LLC
Planning and Landscape Architecture
PO Box 10424 | Eugene, OR 97440
PH: (541) 234-5108 | schirmer@schirmerconsulting.com
(Please note: This phone number does not receive text messages)
61
Schirmer Consulting, LLC · PO Box 10424, Eugene, OR 97440 · (541) 234-5108
Landscape Architecture + Land Use Planning
November 28, 2023
Eugene Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
Sent Via email: RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov
RE: RRSC Plan – C2 abutting R-1
At a recent Planning Commission meeting a few commissioners requested zoning information showing where
C-2 abuts R-1 in the RRSC Plan area.
The attached maps relied on available data. It is possible a few properties were overlooked, or the data base
may not reflect the zoning perfectly, but this may help in some of the decision making. The current known uses
have been labeled as well. In some cases, the use on the R-1 property is not residential but an EWEB power
station and a City of Eugene park.
I hope you find this information of some use for your decision making.
Sincerely,
Schirmer Consulting, LLC
Carol Schirmer
Principal
62
Attachment A
C-2 abutting R-1
Attachment B
C-2 abutting R-1
Attachment C
C-2 abutting R-1
Attachment E
C-2 abutting R-1
Attachment F
C-2 abutting R-1
Zoning: C-2 abutting R-1
63
ATTACHMENT A
Residential Mobile Home Park
Vacant: Owners own mobile
home park to the north
64
ATTACHMENT B
River Road Sewing and Vacuum
Mini Pet Mart
The Filling Station (beer store)
Vacant
Residential Home
Lane Transit District
65
Selco Credit Union
EWEB
Santa Clara Medical Clinic
ATTACHMENT C
City of Eugene
Lone Oak Park
66
ATTACHMENT D
Pest control business
Vacant Lot
Medical Supply Store
7-Eleven
Gift/Thrift
Store
Burgers/Second Hand
Store/Haircuts
Residential Homes
Residential dwelling
67
Residential
Use
ATTACHMENT E
Boundary RRSC
68
From:Dr. David Illig
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Santa Clara future
Date:Monday, November 27, 2023 10:13:57 AM
[EXTERNAL ]
I have written before about things to change other than the important things such as housing,
poverty, transportation etc. etc. And I called it quality-of-living or life- style. How do we
make it more beautiful, more pleasant, more fun, more enjoyable? More tasty? More relaxing?
More entertaining? More homey...... A place to go to....etc.
Thinking about the Santa Clara/River Road area and its history and its future, there needs to be
a change of philosophy and concept. Otherwise, not much different will happen. Much or
most of what needs to change seems to relate to the concept that people in SC/RR can and
should drive to most of the nice things they would like, rather than have them here.
Much of the things I'm talking about obviously relate to private businesses rather than public
works. Say a bakery, or a family brew pub. Or an Italian family restaurant. Or an Urgent Care.
Or several neighborhood family bars. And on and on. And on. And more attractive buildings
and architecture. Or restaurants located in old classic houses on River Road. And on and on.
Or even industries that create family wage jobs. And you walk to the town center for a drink
before going home.
How do we do things that create the wonderful village that we live in rather than need to drive
to anything really nice? What can you do that shapes the businesses that come to SC/RR so
that this village comes to be?????????
One thing is that you have to adopt a vision of SC/RR as this somewhat free- standing-village
that requires little travel and has some of everything good. And is pretty and pleasant and
comfortable and welcoming for those of all incomes. And not that you live in SC/RR and
have to drive to anything half nice if you want it. What can you do to get these businesses to
grow and succeed here? And stay?
Please change what is the vision of SC/RR for the future and determine how to build it.
Thanks for your efforts. David Illig
--
Dr. David Illig
4143 Hampshire Lane
Eugene, Oregon 97404
541-636 3836 Cell: 503 936 9050
DrDavidIllig@gmail.com
69
From:Teresa Bishow
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:RRSC Plan - Metro Plan Designations and Zoning
Date:Wednesday, November 22, 2023 3:46:03 PM
Attachments:Bishow Testimony PC 2023 11 22.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Hi,
Please accept the attached testimony regarding Eugene Files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County File
509-PA23-05532.
The testimony contains a letter, Unofficial Map of the Metro Plan Designations for RRSC and a map
showing existing Eugene Zoning in RRSC.
Thanks,
Teresa
Teresa Bishow, AICP
Bishow Consulting LLC
375 West 4th Ave, Suite 204
P.O. Box 50721
Eugene, OR 97405
541-514-1029
www.bishowconsulting.com
70
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
375 West 4th Ave., Ste 204
P.O. Box 50721
Eugene, OR 97405
541-514-1029
teresa@bishowconsulting.com
November 22, 2023
Eugene Planning Commission
Lane County Planning Commission
Sent Via E-mail: RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov
RE: RRSC PLAN – Metro Plan Designations and Zoning
At the November 14th Eugene Planning Commission meeting a few commissioners
requested additional information regarding commercial properties.
Attached is an Unofficial Map of the Metro Plan Designations for RRSC. I am not
requesting the Metro Plan Designation map be included in the RRSC
Neighborhood Plan. I am providing the tax lot specific map to illustrate existing
planned commercial areas in RRSC. This custom map was created by LCOG based on
digital databases in the regional geographic information system (RLID). The map does
not show two small Urban Reserve areas in the northwest portion of Santa Clara or the
Nodal Development area at the southern end of River Road.
Attached is a tax lot specific Zoning Map for RRSC. I recommend that a Zoning Map
that is tax lot specific be inc luded in the RRSC Neighborhood Plan. The draft
RRSC Neighborhood Plan contains a Neighborhood Plan Map on page 6 that is a blend
of current zoning patterns and a vision for the future. For example, the Neighborhood
Plan Map shows areas as “Parks and Open Space” – this may depict the vision for the
neighborhood but none of the parks in RRSC are actually zoned PRO Parks,
Recreation, and Open Space. Including a tax lot specific Zoning Map in the RRSC Plan
will provide useful information and could be added as a new Figure 8 to the Land Use
section.
Sincerely,
Teresa Bishow
Teresa Bishow, AICP
Attachments:
Unofficial Map of the Metro Plan Designations for River Road -Santa Clara
Eugene Zoning: River Road – Santa Clara
71
Rive
r
Rd
H
w
y
9
9
N
Irving Rd
Nor
thw
e
s
t
Exp
re
ssw
ayDe lta Hw y
Be
a
c
o
n
D
r
Randy Pape
B
e
l
t
l
i
n
e
Roose
v
e
l
t
B
l
v
d
Be
t
h
e
l
D
r
Maxw
e
l
l
R
d
Royal Ave
Irvington DrPrairie RdI-105W 1st Ave
Rive
r
A
v
eHyacinth StElmira Rd
Horn Ln
Wilke
s
D
r
N Park AvePark AveTane y St
Barge
r
D
r
How
a
r
d
A
v
e Sce nic Dr
Rive
r
L
o
o
p
2
Crocke r Rd
Division Ave
Hunsake
r
L
n
Lynnbrook Dr
Arrow he ad StEcho Hollow Rd
Silve
r
L
n
Blackfoot Ave
Lake Dr
Marshall Ave
W 2nd Ave Willagille spie RdGoodpasture Island RdLancaste r DrN Be rte lse n RdGrove StChambe rs St
Railroad BlvdCubit StRuby Ave
Spring Cre
e
k
D
r
Se ne ca RdN Clare y St
Valle
y
R
i
v
e
r
D
rFairfie ld Ave
E Enid Rd
Goodpasture
L
pBe ave r StGarfie ld StS Be rte lse n RdCal
la
S
t
Dibble
e
L
n
Aw
b
r
e
y
L
n
N Se ne ca RdN Garfie ld StMaple StDe
lta
Hw
y
SB
Onramp
Cornw
a
l
l
A
v
e
I-105Randy P
a
p
e
B
e
l
t
l
i
n
e
De lta Hw yPrair
ie
Rd
W 1st Ave
Unofficial Map of the Me tro Plan De signations for Rive r Road – Santa Clara
*No te : This m ap is no t part o f the Me tro po litan Are a Ge neral Plan, and is no t the ado pte d Plan Diagram .
Rive r Rd & Santa Clara Ne ighbo rho o d Bo undary
Urban Gro wth Bo undary
Euge ne /Springfie ld Me tro Plan Bo undary
Agric ulture
Co m m e rc ial
Go ve rnm e nt and Educ atio n
Sand and Grave l
Light Me dium Indus trial
Rural Indus trial
Lo w De ns ity Re s ide ntial
Me dium De ns ity Re s ide ntial
Parks and Ope n Spac e
Rural Re s ide ntial
Lane Co unty Ro ad Ce nte rline s µ0 0.5 10.25 Mile s
Printe d: 11/22/2023
This m ap was c re ate d o n the dates ho wn fo r Te re s a Bis ho w. The m apdis plays c o m pre he ns ive plande s ignatio n data as re fle c te d in theRe gio nal Land Info rm atio n Databas eand is no t the ac tual ado pte d plandiagram . No te to o , that Rive r Ro adNo dal Deve lo pm e nt and UrbanRe s erve areas are no t s ho wn.
The info rm atio n o n this m ap wasde rive d fro m digital databas es o nLane Co unc il o f Go vernm e nts ’re gio nal ge o graphic info rm atio ns ys tem . Care was taken in thec re atio n o f this m ap, but it ispro vide d "as is ". LCOG c anno tac c ept any re s po ns ibility fo r e rro rs ,o m is s io ns , o r po s itio nal ac c urac y inthe digital data o r the unde rlyingre c o rds . Curre nt plan de s ignatio nsfo r s pe c ific parc e ls s ho uld bec o nfirm e d with the appro priatejuris dic tio n. The re are no warrantie s ,expre s s e d o r im plied, ac c o m panyingthis pro duc t.
72
Rive
r
Rd
H
w
y
9
9
N
Irving Rd
Nor
thw
es
t
Exp
res
s
w
ayDelta Hw y
Rand
y
P
a
p
e
B
e
l
t
l
i
n
e
Beacon Dr
Roos
e
v
e
l
t
B
l
v
d
Bethel Dr
Maxw
e
l
l
R
d
Royal AvePrairie RdIrvington Dr
W 1s
t
A
v
e I-105River AveHyacinth StElmira Rd
Horn Ln
Wilkes
D
r
N Park AvePark Ave
Barger Dr
Taney StHow
a
r
d
A
v
e Scenic DrRiver Loop 2
Crocker RdDivis
i
o
n
A
v
e
Huns
a
k
e
r
L
n
Lynnbrook Dr
Arrow head StEcho Hollow Rd
Silver Ln
Blackfoot Ave
Lake DrMars
h
a
l
l
A
v
e
Willagilles pie RdGood pas ture Is land RdLancas ter Dr
W 2nd
A
v
eN Bertels en RdGrove StRailroad
B
l
v
d
Chambers StCubit StRuby Ave
Spring Creek Dr
E Enid Rd
N Clarey StValley River DrFairfield Ave
Good
p
a
s
t
u
r
e
L
pBeaver StSeneca RdAw brey Ln
S Bertels en RdCal
la
S
t
Dibblee Ln
Garfield StN Seneca RdMaple StDelta
Hw
y
SB
Onramp
Cornw
a
l
l
A
v
e
W 1s
t
A
v
e
Rand
y
P
a
p
e
B
e
l
t
l
i
n
e
Delta Hw yPrairie
RdI-105Eugene Zoning: River Road – Santa Clara
±Lane Council of Governments
859 Willamette St., Suite 500
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Eugene Planning & Development
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Printed: 11-22-23
AG Agricultural
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 Community Commercial
C-3 Major Commercial
GO General Office
PL Public Land
E-1 Campus Employment
E-2 Mixed Use Employment
I-2 Light-Medium Industrial
I-3 Heavy Industrial
NR Natural Resource
PRO Park, Recreation & Open Space
R-1 Low-Density Residential
R-2 Medium-Density Residential
R-3 Limited High-Density Residential
R-4 High-Density Residential
S-H Special Area - Historic
S-x Special Area - Other (various)
River Rd & Santa Clara Neighborhood Boundary
Urban Growth Boundary
0 2,5001,250 Feet
All data layers current to date of map.
To verify zoning contact the
Eugene Permit and Information Center.
This map does not show zoning overlays
(such as site review, planned unit development,
or density limitations) which can affect how
property is developed.
73
From:Tiffany Edwards
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Fwd: Feedback on EPC Agenda - RRSC Plan
Date:Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:12:22 PM
[EXTERNAL ]
Forwarding an email from Bill Kloos to be included in the record.
Thank you!
Tiffany Edwards
Eugene Planning Commission
mobile: 541-678-3370
TiffanyEdwardsPC@gmail.com
From: Bill Kloos <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2023 9:55 AM
To: Ken Beeson (kenbeeson200@gmail.com) <kenbeeson200@gmail.com>; Lisa Fragala
(fragalacoeplanning@gmail.com) <fragalacoeplanning@gmail.com>; Chris Ramey
(epcramey@comcast.net) <epcramey@comcast.net>; Jason Leer
(planningcommissionerlear@gmail.com) <planningcommissionerlear@gmail.com>
Cc: Tiffany Edwards (tiffanytelfer@gmail.com) <tiffanytelfer@gmail.com>; Bill Kloos
<billkloos@landuseoregon.com>
Subject: FW: Feedback on EPC Agenda - RRSC Plan
Commissioners –
Tiffany Edwards asked that I forward to you.
See below.
Bill Kloos
Law Office of Bill Kloos PC
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 204
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541-954-1260
Email: Bill Kloos@LandUseOregon.com
Web: www.LandUseOregon.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email communication may
contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or if
you have reason to believe that this message has been addressed to you in error, you are
hereby notified that your receipt of this email was not intended by the sender and any disclosure,
copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information
except its direct delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
74
email in error, please notify me immediately by telephone at the numbers listed above or by
email and then delete the e-mail from your computer and do not print, copy or disclose it to
anyone else. Thank you.
From: Bill Kloos
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2023 7:22 AM
To: Tiffany Edwards <tiffanytelfer@gmail.com>
Cc: Bill Kloos <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>
Subject: RE: Feedback on EPC Agenda - RRSC Plan
Tiffany –
Yes, I have thoughts to offer on the new staff report. Thanks for asking.
Here are short, candid responses to staff’s answers to questions, stated by number. In general:
They are treating the Commissioners like mushrooms.
They are making new evidentiary statements that are not based on the record.
Some of their most assertive statements are plainly illogical.
They are not candid or inquisitive about the real-world impacts of the new regulations on real
people and existing businesses.
Major Take-Away: They seem OK with stacking the plans and adding the appropriate
Introduction/Qualifier. That is a great strategy. The crankshaft of the Introduction just needs
to tell the truth: The new plan is advisory, not to be applied to land decisions; the old plan
remains binding on land use decisions; in 2026 FedEx will deliver us what all other cities have
– a Metro Plan diagram that gives every parcel a color.
2. Code amendments – prohibited uses:
Existing uses (including Action Rent-All and Clemens Boats) would be prohibited by the C-2
changes.
Staff says they can continue to exist but not be expanded.
That is the most positive gloss that can be put a sentence of death by starvation. EC 9.1200 is
clear:
“This land use code provides for the orderly termination of legal nonconforming
situations in order to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and bring
these lots, uses, or structures into compliance with this land use code.”
Action Rent-All, which just bought the two C-2 lots next door to relocate and expand can’t do
that. They will not be able to expand with their market at all. They will not be able to relocate
next door. That means they will be gone eventually, as the code intends.
The PC asked for data on specific businesses will be impacted. They have not given you that
information. It might require marking up a map on a one-hour windshield survey. There is still
time.
3. Code Amendments – Building Height Reduction
The rationale for the C-2 height reduction is that is what the people who came to the
75
meetings and spoke the loudest wanted. Is that the right way to write zoning code language?
Put in the residential neighborhood context: “Sorry, we are rewriting the code because your
neighbors want a single-story neighborhood; if you want to expand to two stories you need to
move.”
4.a. What prompted the initial pursuit of a new neighborhood plan?
The rationale is that the existing plan is dated and we have spent a lot of time on the new
plan.
Just because something is olde does not mean it should go down the chute. Ask any Planning
Commissioner on Social Security.
Time and money invested is a crummy rationale for making people ride in a faulty new plane
design or adopting a bad plan.
4.b. Can the 1987 UFP be amended instead of repealed and replaced? Why wasn’t this the path
that was chosen?
This is the dump the old plan and get a new plan rationale; but it misses the point.
The old plan and the new plan are not the same type of work products.
The old plan has binding policies and specific plan designations that must be applied to land
use decisions.
The new plan is not a plan; it is a Vision Statement; it prohibits applying the plan to any land
use decisions.
This is not dumping the ’57 Chevy and buying a ’23 Honda hybrid.
This is like trading the ’57 Chevy for a new pair of sunglasses; everything looks better through
the new glasses, but you have lost the ability to get where you are going.
4.c. Can we layer the new neighborhood plan on top of the 1987 plan?
Sounds like Staff think layering is possible, provided it comes with the appropriate
introductory statement.
There can’t be any inconsistencies because the new plan is advisory only and the old is
binding by its terms.
And it would just be an interim fix.
All of the refinement plan diagrams will become panda thumbs when the promised, 100%
parcel-specific Metro Plan Diagram arrives by FedEx in 2026.
4.d. Is it possible to do a land use diagram? What are the options?
Queue the blue smoke and mirrors here.
The rationale in the first paragraph is that we should dump the 1987 RRSC plan Diagram now
and just use the Metro Plan Diagram until the 100% parcel specific Metro Plan Diagram
arrives in 2026.
This does not pass the straight-face test.
If you were starting a trip in the fog with a proven roadmap, would you really leave that
roadmap at home because you are promised the new and improved version two years down
the road?
Why not keep the 1987 Diagram until 2026 Metro Diagram arrives? It is just two years away.
Let’s keep our current RRSC road map until we get a better one.
76
The second paragraph makes sense; staff seems willing to stack the plans.
Staff says: “Since the two plans serve different purposes, this option appears to be technically
viable as well.” Great idea.
The third paragraph suggests high-grading stuff from the existing plan and pulling it into the
new plan. Staff don’t like this option. Agreed; it would be a nightmare.
4.e. Will there be a parcel-specific diagram for outside the City/inside the UGB?
Correct; a parcel-specific Metro Plan Diagram will cover all the area inside the UGB hula hoop.
At that point Eugene will have caught up with all the other Cities and Counties in Oregon;
only Eugene citizens enjoy the sport of “What’s My Plan Designation?” Having to play that
game causes delay, wastes public and private money on over-worked lawyers, and delays
providing housing (and everything else).
4.f. Without a more focused land sue diagram, won’t there be less direction and certainty for
property owners and businesses?
Staff say “it depends.” The correct answer is “certainly.”
Staff note that neither the RRSC nor the Metro Plan Diagram is fully parcel specific; that is
misleading; the RRSC Diagram is much more specific than the Metro Diagram; that is why
decisions still look to the RRSC plan Diagram to make the final determination.
Staff say the RRSC plan Diagram has been incorporated into the Metro Plan Diagram.
However, the Metro Plan says that its Diagram is not parcel specific on the boundary line of
two plan designations; that is where the questions always arise.
If you absorb a more specific plan diagram into a less specific plan diagram, and then dispose
of the former, you have officially dumbed down the plan diagram available for use.
Note that the Table of RRSC land use decisions submitted by Bishow Consulting shows that
the RRSC Diagram continues to be relied upon to make the final determination on plan
designations when that needs to be done, even after 2004.
Bill Kloos
Law Office of Bill Kloos PC
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 204
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541-954-1260
Email: Bill Kloos@LandUseOregon.com
Web: www.LandUseOregon.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email communication may
contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or if
you have reason to believe that this message has been addressed to you in error, you are
hereby notified that your receipt of this email was not intended by the sender and any disclosure,
copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information
except its direct delivery to the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
email in error, please notify me immediately by telephone at the numbers listed above or by
email and then delete the e-mail from your computer and do not print, copy or disclose it to
anyone else. Thank you.
From: Tiffany Edwards <tiffanytelfer@gmail.com>
77
Sent: Wednesday, November 8, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Bill Kloos <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>
Subject: Feedback on EPC Agenda - RRSC Plan
Hey Bill,
If you're able to take a look at the agenda for Tuesday's Planning Commission meeting,
staff mentioned having provided some options for the Commissioners to consider.
I haven't yet had a chance to comb through it but it's out. If you have any feedback, let
me know before Tuesday!
Thanks!
Tiffany
https://www.eugene-or.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_11142023-1221
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Edwards | TiffanyTelfer@gmail.com | 541.678.3370
78
From:dancing1@fastmail.us
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Re: Feedback on Neighborhood Plan for River Rd.
Date:Saturday, November 18, 2023 12:10:44 PM
[You don't often get email from dancing1@fastmail.us. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL ]
This is a revision, the same but with a #3 added. Also, I saw Filbert
Ave for the first time this morning. It is in terrible shape. Not our street
but it desperately needs repaving.
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023, at 1:38 PM, dancing1@fastmail.us wrote:
> There are two [three] major concerns:
> 1, Bring back the 55 bus! Someone complained about the severe cuts
> which started with covid
> and have not been reversed and were told, it's not used much. Well,
> you can go out at 8 a.m.
> and come back midafternoon. Otherwise, it's useless. How many people
> need a bus on that
> time schedule? No wonder it's not used much! We want and need the 55
> bus.
>
> 2. Do NOT add another community center in Santa Clara. Use the Emerald Park
> Recreation Center. Taxes to support EPRC are very high and plenty more users
> and support for it could be added. Why add on another very expensive community
> center? Use the existing one and funnel resources to support it.
3. [added] Park Terrace is listed as a private street. How can it be considered a private
street? It is a major connector that people take between Sunnyside and Park
Terrace. This is a public street which should be maintained by either the city
of Eugene or Lane County.
>
> Eleanor & John Lepinski
>
> --
> --
--
--
79
From:dancing1@fastmail.us
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Feedback on Neighborhood Plan for River Rd.
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2023 1:38:44 PM
[You don't often get email from dancing1@fastmail.us. Learn why this is important at
https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[EXTERNAL ]
There are two major concerns:
1, Bring back the 55 bus! Someone complained about the severe cuts which started with covid
and have not been reversed and were told, it's not used much. Well, you can go out at 8 a.m.
and come back midafternoon. Otherwise, it's useless. How many people need a bus on that
time schedule? No wonder it's not used much! We want and need the 55 bus.
2. Do NOT add another community center in Santa Clara. Use the Emerald Park
Recreation Center. Taxes to support EPRC are very high and plenty more users
and support for it could be added. Why add on another very expensive community
center? Use the existing one and funnel resources to support it.
Eleanor & John Lepinski
--
--
80
From:A Marie
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Thousands...
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2023 1:38:35 PM
You don't often get email from gassgil@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL ]
Hello there,
We appreciate the work being done to improve santa clara. It really makes us happy to see it
happening. Santa clara is a diamond in the rough.
We need better infrastructure and more parks for sure.
The tweaker-highway river bike path has recently seemed a lot safer during the day. We
appreciate this so much! Not sure who to thank!? Night time is another story in santa clara.
Many people seem to crawl out of the bushes into the santa clara area at night. We have seen
several bike chop shops where they switch out parts on stolen bikes. About 9 to 10 pm they
are moving their vans, cars, etc into Albertson's parking lot area. From there some disperse
into neighborhoods to break into cars. There needs to be some kind of police or ? In the area at
night. Of course, addiction treatment and housing would be so helpful.
The traffic on river road is definitely overwhelming and out of control. More bike lanes for
safety would be greatly appreciated. A light to get out of the fred meyer parking lot needs to
happen asap. It is scary and challenging to get out at times, not to mention many accidents.
Also many of the lights in santa clara do not have left turn arrows.
In addition there are thousands of people who travel from Eugene to the oregon state hospital
and to and from junction city every day. A bike or walking path needs to be made from santa
clara to jc. Thousands of cars would be off the roads and people could be healthier. Riding a
bike north on prairie rd, highway 99, or river road is a life threatening endeavor. You may
notice how rarely bikes use these roads.
Employees of the psych hospital really need the stress release of an exercise path. The hospital
struggles with nursing retention and having a healthy way to commute would help. Even a dirt
path with some wood chips along any of the roads north would be used consistently.
Thank you
Angela Gass, M.S.W.
81
From:Sandy Thoms
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:River Road Land Use Code Amendements
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2023 1:00:32 PM
You don't often get email from sandythoms@msn.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL ]
I have been unable to thoroughly take in all of the proposed changes to the new plan, but one
glaring thing that pops out to me is the discriminatory stance it takes on people whose
livelihood relies on vehicle sale, maintenance, etc.
For example, Autorama is a car dealership at the intersection of Oakleigh lane and River Road.
We have found the owner to be a wonderful neighbor and contributor to our community
during the past 26 years that we have lived here. Saying his business is no longer welcome in
our area is a horrible message.
Another example is North Eugene automotive. This small car repair company has been in the
area for YEARS!! We have found them to be fair, experienced, and helpful in the past and
having a car repair shop that people can drop off a vehicle and then walk home is a positive
thing for our community, not a negative one.
Be discriminating against these small local businesses, we create opportunity for the larger
commercial companies to put them out of business. Should we not be supporting small local
businesses?! Banning these types of uses in the area also creates the need for people to
simply drive MORE in order to have their needs met. Yes, we do have and drive cars. Yes, we
do need those cars to be repaired, filled up with fuel, etc. "Hiding" those businesses from site
is not making them go away or lessen the need.
I could go on to list more, but sadly I have found that Public Comment is often dismissed for
people with bigger motives so I won't waste too much of my time. I guess I hope that
someone might actually listed to the impacts these changes will have on our River Road
neighborhood in a negative way.
Sandy Thoms
28 year resident of Oaklgeigh Lane
82
From:Samuel Rutledge
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:RRSC Neighborhood Plan
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2023 12:59:52 PM
You don't often get email from samuelrutledge@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL ]
I urge you not to cave to short sighted NIMBYism, and to approve these needed plan
amendments. River Road and Santa Clara need these changes to grow into an even more
vibrant, walkable, pleasant community.
Thanks
Sam Rutledge
83
From:Teresa Bishow
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Re: Opportunity to Submit Additional Testimony to the Eugene Planning Commission
Date:Thursday, November 16, 2023 9:54:33 AM
[EXTERNAL ]
I observed the 11/14 Eugene Planning Commission meeting and was very impressed with the lively
discussion and various perspectives offered by Commissioners.
I sincerely appreciate the Commission’s decision to review and consider additional public written
comments through 9 p.m. on November 28.
Thank you,
Teresa
Teresa Bishow, AICP
Bishow Consulting LLC
375 West 4th Ave, Suite 204
P.O. Box 50721
Eugene, OR 97405
541-514-1029
www.bishowconsulting.com
84
From:PATT MEEKER
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Date:Thursday, November 9, 2023 2:45:44 PM
Attachments:20231109140245691.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Heres are a few more that we received recently
--
Patt
85
86
87
88
89
90
From:Micheal Reeder
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan; Teresa Bishow; DOMINGO Elena M
Cc:KLOOS Bill (SMTP); Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com); PATT MEEKER
Subject:Written Testimony from Hewes Marine Co. & North River Boats
Date:Friday, November 3, 2023 5:33:20 PM
Attachments:image001.png
20231103121239303.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Dear Eugene Planning Staff:
Please see the attached letters and include into the record for consideration by
the Planning Commissions - City files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County file 509-
PA23-05532.
Respectfully,
Mike
Office: (541) 225-8777 | oregonlanduse.com
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205, Eugene, OR 97401
NOTICE: This email is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the message.
From: Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:56 AM
To: Teresa Bishow <Teresa@bishowconsulting.com>; Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-
or.gov>; DOMINGO Elena M <EDomingo@eugene-or.gov>
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP) <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>; Micheal Reeder
<mreeder@oregonlanduse.com>; Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com) <jbhomes4@msn.com>
Subject: RE: Testimony for 10/17 Hearing - Business Owner Letters and Petitions
This testimony has been received.
Elena
From: Teresa Bishow <Teresa@bishowconsulting.com>
91
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:39 AM
To: Eugene RR-SC Plan <RRSCPlan@eugene-or.gov>; DOMINGO Elena M <EDomingo@eugene-
or.gov>
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP) <billkloos@landuseoregon.com>; Mike Reeder
<mreeder@oregonlanduse.com>; Kevin Journey (jbhomes4@msn.com) <jbhomes4@msn.com>
Subject: Testimony for 10/17 Hearing - Business Owner Letters and Petitions
[EXTERNAL
92
93
94
From:Brent Hutchings
To:Eugene RR-SC Plan
Subject:Testimony on River Road - Santa Clara Neighborhood-Specific Code Amendments
Date:Thursday, November 2, 2023 2:37:51 PM
Attachments:Letter to Eugene Planning Commission on Behalf of Clemens Marina.pdf
You don't often get email from brenthutchings@mindspring.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL ]
Dear Ms. Domingo,
Attached please find my testimony on the matter of the River Road - Santa Clara
Neighborhood-Specific Code Amendments. Thank you for your consideration of my
testimony.
Best regards,
Brent
Brent H. Hutchings
CEO
North River Boats
503-460-7484
95
1750 Green Siding Road
Roseburg, OR 97471
Date: November 2, 2023 Sent via email and U.S. Mail.
Eugene Planning Commission
c/o Elena Domingo
City of Eugene Planning Division
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Dear Ms. Domingo:
As a former resident of beautiful Eugene and current Oregon small business owner, I write on behalf of
Clemens Marina to oppose the proposed River Road – Santa Clara Neighborhood-Specific Code
Amendments.
Clemens Marina, located on 309 River Avenue in Eugene, is the largest customer of North River Boats,
where I serve as CEO. North River employees 150 people in Roseburg, making us one of the largest
private employers in Douglas County. North River is no ordinary boat manufacturer. We are an
employee-owned company (ESOP), which means that the employees are being given ownership of the
company over time at no cost to them. When my wife and I are dead and gone, the employees of North
River will own the entire company without ever having paid a penny to purchase shares. The largest
single part of the value of the shares of North River is the business we do with Clemens Marina. In many
cases, these shares are the single biggest retirement asset of the hardworking folks of North River.
The proposed code amendments for River Road and the Santa Clara neighborhood do not just pose a
critical threat to Clemens Marina, itself a thriving small Oregon business, they also threaten the
living-wage jobs of 150 people 60 miles south at North River in Roseburg. North River is a shining
beacon of hope in economically-challenged Douglas County. In addition to the ESOP, North River people
receive a benefit package that includes company-provided health insurance, vision, dental and life
insurance, a 401-k with a generous company match, and cost of living raises every year for the 11 years I
have been at the helm. All of this is threatened by the code amendments.
Eugene is a wonderful place, and I know you work hard to keep it that way. Crippling a small business
like Clemens would be a truly terrible byproduct of the proposed code amendments. Another awful
consequence would be the disastrous impact it would have on the 150 hard-working employee owners of
North River. On behalf of the people of Clemens and North River, I ask you to not move forward with
these code amendments. Thank you for considering my testimony.
Sincerely,
NORTH RIVER BOATS
Brent H. Hutchings
CEO
96