HomeMy WebLinkAbout24_03_04_1700_Batch5_TestimonyRiver Road -Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan
City File: MA 23-5, CA 23-3
County File: 509-PA23-05532
Testimony Batch 5
Batch Information
Date Range
Date
Batch Number
Page Count
Start
End
Submissions
15:08
1
11/28/2023
3/4/2024
3/4/2024
5
41
Carol Schirmer
Testimony
10
11:06
1
at 21:01
at 17:00
3/4/2024
From
To
Date
Time
Attachments
Bill Kloos
Testimony
3/4/2024
15:08
1
Andr6e Phelps
Testimony
3/4/2024
15:06
1
Carol Schirmer
Testimony
3/4/2024
11:06
1
Teresa Bishow
Testimony
3/4/2024
8:38
1
Micheal Reeder
Testimony
3/2/2024
11:26
1
Hillary Kittleson
Testimony
2/29/2024
11:13
Steve Norris
Testimony
2/21/2024
14:08
1
Ken Beeson
Testimony
2/16/2024
11:02
Dawn Lesley
Testimony
1/30/2024
12:17
Patt Meeker
Testimony
11/29/2023
13:20
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: Bill Kloos
To: Eugene RR -SC Plan; *Euaene Mayor. City Council. and City Manager
Cc: KLOOS Bill (SMTP); Kevin Journey (jbhomes4Cabmsn.com�; Mike Reeder (mreeden'gboregonlanduse.com); Teresa
Bishow(teresa(abbishowconsulting.com); Andree Phelps (andree(ciandreephelpslaw.com)
Subject: Testimony for RRSC Plan and Code Amendments
Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 3:08:10 PM
Attachments: Kloos Lttr to City Council 3.4.2024.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Please add this letter of testimony to the record, filed on behalf of Action Rent -All and Events.
Bill Kloos
Law Office of Bill Kloos PC
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 204
Eugene, OR 97401
Phone: 541-954-1260
Email: Bill Kloos& Land UseOregon.com
Web: www.LandUse0regon.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.
1
LAW OFFICE OF BILL KLOOS PC
OREGON LAND USE LAW
375 W. 4- AVENUE, SUITE 204
EUGENE, OR 97401
TEL: 541.954.1260
WEB: WWW.LANDUSEOREGON.COM
March 4, 2024
Mayor Vinis and Eugene City Council
c/o Elana Domingo, Associate Planner
Eugene Planning Division
99 W. 10th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401
BILL KLOOS
BILLKLOOS @LANDUSEOREGON.COM
Re: RRSC Plan and Code Amendments
Eugene Files MA23-5 and CA23-3 & County File 509-PA23-05532
Dear Mayor Vinis and Councilors:
Like Teresa Bishow, I represent Kevin and Lora Journey and Action Rent -All & Events. This is
a longstanding local business renting its site on River Ave. The owners have purchased property
next door intending to relocate and expand.
You have excellent letters from Bishow Consulting, Attny Micheal Reeder, Attny Andree'
Phelps, and Schirmer Consulting. These letters point out in detail the frightening shortcomings
in the proposed code amendments, asking that the amendments be dropped from any decision to
adopt the new plan. I concur. The amendments can't be successfully defended.
For my part, I want to stress two points about the code amendments, which will make my client's
use a nonconforming use (NCU).
First, staff may say that all existing business may continue as NCUs. They likely will not say is
that a NCU is not allowed to expand, and, more significantly, that status amounts to the city
saying: "Please shut down or leave, eventually; you are not good enough for this neighborhood;
we want classier uses than yours around here."
Second, making any River Ave. business a NCU is flat out contrary to Envision Eugene Policy
3.5, Business retention and expansion: "Facilitate the retention and growth of existing
businesses in the community. " What findings will city planners suggest to show compliance
with this policy to justify the code amendments?
Sincerely,
B/11U-0Os
Bill Kloos
Cc: clients
From:
Andree Phelps
To:
Eugene RR -SC Plan
Cc:
Lewis
Subject:
Testimony related to RRSC Plan and Code Amendments: Eugene Files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County File 509-
PA23-05532
Date:
Monday, March 4, 2024 3:06:06 PM
Attachments:
Rucker Testimony 030424.pdf
IYou don't often get email from andree@andreephelpslaw.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL
Please accept, and include in the record, the attached letter as testimony in opposition to the
RRSC Code Amendments.
Thank you,
Andree Phelps
(she/her)
Andree 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.
Andree Phelps Law, LLC
375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 204
Eugene, OR 97401
March 4, 2024
Sent Via Email: RRSCPlan&eu eg ne-or. og_v
Mayor Vinis and Eugene City Council
c/o Elena Domingo, Associate Planner
Eugene Planning Division
99 West 101 Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Re: RRSC Plan and Code Amendments / Lewis Rucker & Rucker Properties, LLC
Dear Mayor Vinis & Councilors:
The following letter is submitted on behalf of Lewis Rucker and Rucker Properties, LLC, owner
of 121 River Avenue.' The property is zoned C-2, is approximately 0.8 acres, and is situated
between River Avenue and the Randy Pape Beltline.
Currently, 121 River Avenue is leased to Action Rent -All & Events, a locally owned and operated
business that has been located on River Avenue since 1984, for 40 years. The business includes a
catering service and the rental of light and heavy equipment. Of the total business revenue, about
30% of the catering service revenue and 90% of the equipment rental is from local customers,
people living and working in the River Road/Santa Clara (RR/SC) area.
The proposed code amendments have already impacted my client as the uncertainty and potential
restrictions have chilled a relocation and expansion by Action Rent -All & Events to adjacent
property. In addition, my client is highly concerned about implementation of the C-2 specific code
amendments and how they will affect his ability to replace the tenant, especially as the Planning
Commission never examined the potential effects of the proposed building standards under EC
9.2170 (aside from building height). We urge the Council to thoroughly examine the effect of these
proposed code amendments.
To that end, this testimony offers a case study in how the proposed code amendments will affect
an existing C-2 zoned property within the RR/SC area.
1 Property is identified as Assessor's Map 17-04-13-22, Tax Lot 1000.
Andree Phelps • Attorney at Law
Andree Phelps Law, LLC
541.221.1431
andree@andreephelpslaw.com
®2of3®
I. 121 River Avenue has a Long History of Local Ownership and has Existing Bicycle
and Pedestrian Access.
The businesses north of River Avenue already support the community stated goals of focusing on
locally owned business and improving non -motorized access.
■ Along with Action Rent -All & Events, the north side of River Avenue is dominated by
long-term, locally owned businesses, which is not the case as River Avenue joins River
Road and national chains dominate.
■ River Avenue is already pedestrian and bicycle user friendly. In front of 121 River Avenue
there is a sidewalk, a bike lane, and a signed and marked cross walk.
II. Proposed Building Standards Attempt to Compel a "Building Look" that is not
Conducive to Existing Businesses and is Impossible to Meet at 121 River Avenue.
The type of "commercial building look" the proposed code amendments are attempting to achieve,
buildings situated up against the sidewalk with see-through windows and architectural features
every 20 feet, is just not suitable for River Avenue businesses, many of these businesses and
structures have been around for decades and were previously zoned industrial. This building
"look" is particularly not suited to 121 River Avenue. The attached Site Plan illustrates that any
addition onto the existing building at 121 River Avenue that attempts to meet the proposed
amendments is just not possible.
The single 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. None of the existing building
footprint is located within the proposed setback area, and the length of the River Avenue facing
fagade of the building is only 35 feet and is without windows. 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.
Any building addition that increases the building fagade facing a street by at least 100% triggers
the minimum and maximum front yard setbacks of between five (5) and fifteen (15) feet as well
as the proposed standard that 80% of that fayade addition must be located within the setback area.
EC 9.2170 (4)(b), (4)(c), and (4)(c)(3). For the structure at 121 River Avenue, an addition greater
than 35 feet in width triggers these standards.
The attached Site Plan illustrates how the code is impossible to meet. The addition cannot meet
the 80% of the fagade located within the proposed setback. It should also be noted that the addition
now blocks the existing access driveway, and the layout no longer makes sense for any similar
commercial business that requires movement of machinery and trucks.
Due to not being able to meet the proposed standards related to buildings, adjustment review would
likely be required for multiple standards if a tenant was interested in leasing. The proposed building
standards do not make sense for 121 River Avenue.
Andree Phelps • Attorney at Law
Andree Phelps Law, LLC
541.221.1431
andree@andreephelpslaw.com
•3of3-
III. Reliance on the Adjustment Review Process as a "Fix" is not the Answer.
In Planning Commission hearings, staff proposed that the adjustment review process would be
adequate to address specific conflicts with the proposed code amendments. However, relying on
the adjustment review process to "fix" problems cannot be the answer.
For example, at 121 River Avenue, the existing structure has been used for the same business for
decades. It is highly feasible that a replacement business would require a building addition to meet
future business needs. There is more than adequate space onsite for expanding the structure,
however, it does not makes sense at this site to build against the sidewalk and have windows every
20 feet. As any building addition on the site would trigger the proposed building standards, the
tenant most likely will be required to apply for 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 fagades along the street.
2. Creates an attractive pedestrian environment along all adjacent streets
3. Is compatible with adjacent development. (emphasis mine)
An adjustment review that is required to comply with all three of the above would make any
prospective buyer or lessee wary. The criteria are highly discretionary, the process is costly, time
consuming, fraught with uncertainty, carries with it the threat that a denial will limit expansion of
business, and a potential for appeal.
IV. Conclusion: Either 1) the Proposed RRSC Code Amendments Should Not be Adopted
or 2) the North Side of River Avenue Should be Carved out from all Proposed RRSC
C-2 Code Amendments, both Prohibited Uses and Building Standards.
We urge the Council to not adopt any of the proposed RRSC code amendments. However, if the
Council does support adopting the proposed RRSC code amendments, we urge the Council to
carve out the area north of River Avenue from all proposed C-2 code amendments as River Avenue
is a unique location adjacent to the Beltline with existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, a
unique history of industrial zoning, an area where commercial activity is appropriate and has been
thriving with long term locally owned businesses for decades.
Respectfully submitted,
Andree N. Phelps
Attorney for Lewis Rucker and Rucker Properties, LLC
2 Applicable adjustment review language under EC 9.8030(2) and draft EC 9.8030(39) is almost identical.
Andree Phelps • Attorney at Law
Andree Phelps Law, LLC
541.221.1431
andree@andreephelpslaw.com
on Muram nn.ws[m[rJ1
c
Y d
E
p
•O
m N m
L N
c
E
U
.o
; v m
�E
5�
SgI• I
!sAIfj 4j
3�� 1i ij
09 0£ 9L 0
0 AC =.L :ae�g
_
d e
sa
Q.
U
O
g
z e
O
0)
to
d -o
N m E
U l
E
t'j
II
o
p .2a
>.
+�
X
•°
o
�
B
8 8
c
c
Y d
E
p
•O
m N m
L N
c
E
U
.o
; v m
w'
N
E E m
Q.
U
a
w°
O
0)
to
d -o
N m E
U l
E
t'j
d L m
o
p .2a
>.
+�
X
•°
o
�
m
o >' N a
d 0
c
N m
C�
YC m U r
a���jN
t
5' min.
r
CwO
O Cl c N N U "O m o
U
N
C
•O
m m
V X� O�� p C
•�wWo3oa
n
v �
o c .m
E o� o 0
ocVm �-0
Qn
>o
aym�o«ay.3
m �
N
N
m
N YO N X
O �',
^ m
G N d c c Ul v V r
Oc
N
IL
of m
c$o�o-o
Q mz 3d<
a
o`
w E
I '
'���.--.��CRi-
7
w'
Q.
20,
t
5' min.
= 0
i
� c
.
Q
v o
- N N
CDm
E m
U m %
From: Carol Schirmer
To: Eugene RR -SC Plan; *Euaene Mayor. City Council. and City Manager
Subject: RRSC Plan and Code Amendments (MA 23-5 & CA 23-3)
Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 11:06:21 AM
Attachments: RR -SC Code comments for Council and Mayor 3.4.24.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Hi Elana,
Please see the attached letter in opposition to the proposed RRSC code amendments, City files MA
23-5 & CA 23-3. Please include the attached letter into the record.
Thank you!
Sincerely,
carol
Carol Schirmer
Schirmer Consulting, LLC
Planning and Landscape Architecture
PO Box 10424 1 Eugene, OR 97440
PH: (541) 234-5108 1 schirmer e schirmerconsulting.com
(Please note: This phone number does not receive text messages)
March 4, 2024
Mayor Vinis and Eugene City Council
Sent Via email: RRSCPlan (a)eugene-or.gov
RE: RRSC Plan — Code Amendments (City File 23-2)
Dear Mayor Vinis and City Councilors:
You have likely received excellent testimony from local land use attorneys and land use planners. I have read
their testimony and agree whole heartedly with their comments.
In addition, I offer you these brief comments and the attached images, as prior testimony has covered much of
the other territory quite well.
One of the greatest impacts the suggested code amendments will have is to require every existing business to
apply for an Adjustment Review if they choose to expand their business. They will not be able to meet the
required maximum setback from the street.
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 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.
An Adjustment Review is a land use application complete with unnecessary cost and delay. It then opens the
applicant up to appeal. In my extensive experience with land use applications Adjustment Reviews are typically
approved.
It is important to ask this question: `If they are always approved and there is no discernable gain to the public.
then why require them?'
Another relevant question is: "Why are zone specific code amendments being proposed as part of a
neighborhood refinement plan?"
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
Schirmer Consulting, LLC . PO Box 10424, Eugene, OR 97440. (541) 234-5108
Landscape Architecture + Land Use Planning
ATTACHMENT A
- C-2 zoned properties that likely can't or may not
be able to meet maximum setbacks upon expansion
- Any expansion will require windows/colonnades/doors
and likely an Adjustment Review.
Residential Homes
Neighborhood Market
Northside Medical Clinic U Haul Storage
40
Oroyan Avepue.
2.
,
AW
xt ice- W
Phi ,rIr- .� r
yy �+ •fyl
2�
Swain Lani6 VAll
_ � .
Illy /y. Lao
_—r.,... .....
�I
can Avenue
Retail Store
Coffee Shop
Santa Clara Farm Stand
`n
ATTACHMENT B
- C-2 zoned properties that likely can't or may not
be able to meet maximum setbacks upon expansion
- Any expansion will require windows/colonnades/doors
and likely an Adjustment Review.
Mini Pet Mart Residential home in C-2
Azalea ve
N.
# ;N- •}-y .r 1. -* --�k ..
17 ��.`�, �� � • _ din `r��``'•3 ,
v rI `gip
Hunsaker Lane
4,L �y�9 _�
fr
-56
- , 0 7 .
x
it A
LTD
Car Wash
I4 \�
Fast Food Restaurant
rIr 1-1
>..;,
-
- C-2 zoned properties that likely can't or may not
be able to meet maximum setbacks upon expansion
- Any expansion will require windows/colonnades/doors
and likely an Adjustment Review.
Physical Therapy Business
Any business in
this complex
Edgewater Furniture
Umpqua Bank
7 h
3
� a T1E s - fni 9
$ yrs
AF Irt 1''lI
�'%nom �i --� �. - n�/.eB ��: :�.�91 �''? ... eP� �Al�ti•.��
Mini Pet Mart
St. Vincent de Paul
W.
U
ATTACHMENT C
Les Schwab Fred Meyer Fast Food Restaurant Selco Credit Union
US Bank Santa Clara
Fast Food Restaurant
Medical Clinic
12
- C-2 zoned properties that likely can't or may not
be able to meet maximum setbacks upon expansion
- Any expansion will require windows/colonnades/doors
and likely an Adjustment Review.
Action Rent -All
.'t4A14'T .;
Wells Fargo
Bank
Coffee Bar
Restaurants
F-11aED] :IM140kaC
Print Shop / Windows, Screens and Glass
Kidney Care Center Multiple
Clemens Marina Businesses
Insurance Com an
Franz Bakery
Outlet /
Orowheat Foods
�
U Post Office p Bance Studio
Neils Wheels
s x
w
s ;
i�.1i
River Avenue
Navigation Center
Laundry
PL Public Land
13
- C-2 zoned properties that likely can't or may not
be able to meet maximum setbacks upon expansion
- Any expansion will require windows/colonnades/doors
and likely an Adjustment Review.
Pest Control Business
UAillr_T91:ia�i4011190
14
- C-2 zoned properties that likely can't or may not
be able to meet maximum setbacks upon expansion
- Any expansion will require windows/colonnades/doors
and likely an Adjustment Review.
Local Food Carts
Eugene Electric Bikes
Countryside Pizza
Happy Hours
Glass Tree Care
Restaurant
Karate Center
Thrift Center
Auto Repair
ATTACHMENT E-2
15
- C-2 zoned properties that likely can't or may not
be able to meet maximum setbacks upon expansion
- Any expansion will require windows/colonnades/doors
and likely an Adjustment Review.
Residential Dwellings
Auto Repair
The Corner Market
UA aEITa:ILTA 14►111i9
W
From: Teresa Bishow
To: Eugene RR -SC Plan; *Euaene Mayor. City Council. and City Manager
Cc: Kevin Journey Cjbhomes4(abmsn.com); Action Rent -All
Subject: RRSC Plan and Code Amendments (MA 23-5 & CA 23-3)
Date: Monday, March 4, 2024 8:38:12 AM
Attachments: Bishow to City Council (Action Rent -All) 3-4-2024.pdf
[EXTERNAL ]
Hi Elana,
Please see the attached letter on behalf of my clients in opposition to the proposed RRSC code
amendments, City files MA 23-5 & CA 23-3. Please include this letter and its attached letter into the
record.
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
17
60jBoSHCNSUOW
P.O. Box 50721
Eugene, OR 97405
541-514-1029
teresa@bishowconsulting.com
March 4, 2024
Eugene Mayor and City Council
c/o Elena Domingo, Associate Planner
Eugene Planning Division
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
Sent Via E-mail: RRSCPlan(a).eugene-or.gov
RE: RRSC Plan and Code Amendments
Eugene Files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County File 509-PA23-05532
Dear Mayor Vinis and Councilors:
I represent Kevin & Lora Journey and Action Rent -All & Events, a locally -owned business on
River Avenue east of River Road. I submitted letters to the Eugene and Lane County Planning
Commissions on October 3, 2023, October 17, 2023, November 22, 2023, and November 28,
2023. 1 also provided testimony at the October 17, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing.
This letter is written to reiterate objection to the RRSC code amendments.
Code amendments must be consistent with statewide planning goals, the comprehensive plan,
and adopted refinement plan. See EC 9.8065.
I. The RRSC Code Amendments are NOT Consistent with Statewide Goal 9
Goal 9: Economic Development- To provide adequate opportunities throughout
the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and
prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
The current proposal advanced by staff is to prohibit uses characterized as "auto -oriented."
However, there is no factual basis establishing the list of so-called "auto -oriented" uses being
prohibited. Fast-food restaurants with a drive -up windows, carwashes, and drive -up Bank ATMs
are "auto -oriented". A business renting heavy equipment, selling boats, or providing storage for
household goods is no more "auto -oriented" than a typical retail store.
There is an insufficient factual basis to justify the proposed imposition of design standards for C-
2 zoned properties in the RRSC Plan area that do not also apply to other C-2 zoned properties
throughout the City. Should the City Council determine that the current C-2 zone standards are
inadequate and need amending, the zone should be evaluated on a city-wide basis.
18
II. The RRSC Code Amendments are NOT Consistent with Envision Eugene
The Envision Eugene Comprehensive 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 1-3)
The proposed RRSC code amendments are not consistent with the Envision Eugene
Comprehensive Plan 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 proposed RRSC code amendments will substantially increase the cost of commercial
development and do not support business retention and expansion. According to EC 9.1200,
the purpose of regulating nonconforming uses is to "limit the expansion of the nonconformity"
and to provide for "the correction or removal of the nonconforming situation in an equitable,
reasonable, and timely manner."
While the current proposed RRSC code amendments would prohibit new uses, the proposed
amendments would demote current lawfully established uses to "nonconforming" status. While it
is true that nonconforming uses and developments may continue to operate and be sold a
nonconforming use is on unstable footing and is reduced in value because the use and
development is not permitted to be expanded or intensified. See EC 9.1220. The nonconforming
use status of existing businesses will negatively impact the owners as the cost of financing
increases, business retention suffers, and growth is squelched.
The proposed RRSC code amendments would change the percent of the building required to be
within a maximum front yard setback and establish new building articulation standards. These
proposed standards do not make sense for many existing and future businesses and will hinder
or prevent certain types of businesses or redevelopment.
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)
RRSC Code Amendments Page 2 of 5X019 BISHOW
Bishow Testimony March 4, 2024 dM CONSULTING
19
Recyclability. The business will be negatively impacted by new standards that thrust the
existing building into the category of a nonconforming structure.
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 proposed RRSC code amendments will create an excessive financial burden on small,
locally -owned businesses by imposing RRSC specific standards.
For the reasons detailed above, we respectfully request the City Council reject in total the
adoption of the proposed RRSC code amendments. However, If the Council decides to adopt
the proposed RRSC code amendments, we request carving out River Avenue from both the list
of prohibited uses as well as the development standards.
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
Carve out River Avenue since the unique characteristics of the area do not warrant the
height restriction and decreasing the maximum building height to 65 feet conflicts with
city policies promoting compact growth, increased residential densities, and mixed uses.
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. 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
RRSC Code Amendments Page 3 of 5X019 BISHOW
Bishow Testimony March 4, 2024 dM CONSULTING
20
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 code
amendments related to exterior walls and windows 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, 2023 meeting included
Rowell Brokaw's evaluation of draft code standards to require a minimum of 80% of the street
facing ground floor building fagade 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 design. They often work against the stated goal of the
code to promote cohesive architecture that is visually appealing. We recommend eliminating
this section." The proposed RRSC code amendments do not address these concerns.
III. The RRSC Code Amendments are Not Consistent with the 1987 River Road -
Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan or the Proposed RRSC Neighborhood
Plan
The adopted and acknowledged 1987 refinement plan contains policies to enhance the
compatibility of adjacent land uses through "appropriate buffering mechanisms, such as
landscape standards" and to "Minimize impacts of new commercial development intended to
consolidate and improve existing strip commercial areas along River Road by requiring
development standards."' In 2001, Eugene's Land Use Code was updated to include new
standards for landscaping and commercial development on a city-wide basis. Subsequent code
amendments have further addressed policies to enhance new commercial development.
The proposed RRSC neighborhood plan does not contain any policies that specifically support
the proposed RRSC code amendments.
The proposed RRSC neighborhood plan does not provide any basis for prohibiting certain uses
in C-2. The proposed RRSC code amendments to C-2 conflict with the proposed RRSC
neighborhood plan policies supporting economic development, small locally owned businesses,
and living wage employment opportunities. There is no clear nexus between the proposed
RRSC neighborhood plan and the proposed RRSC code amendments to C-2 standards. The
proposed RRSC code amendments will impact all C-2 zoned property in RRSC and result in a
substantial number of new non -conforming situations and significant financial costs to
businesses.
11987 River Road -Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan, policies 1.0 and 5.0, page 2-18.
RRSC Code Amendments Page 4 of 5X019 BISHOW
Bishow Testimony March 4, 2024 dM CONSULTING
21
IV. Conclusion
The proposed RRSC code amendments are not consistent with Statewide goals, Envision
Eugene Comprehensive Plan, or the 1987 River Road -Santa Clara Urban Facilities Plan.
Furthermore, the proposed RRSC code amendments conflict with the proposed River Road
Santa Clara neighborhood plan. We urge the City Council to reject the adoption of the
proposed RRSC code amendments or at least carve out River Avenue.
Sincerely,
Te4-e4c 3Www
Teresa Bishow, AICP
Attachment: Letter from Kevin & Lora Journey to Planning Commission on November 28, 2023
cc: Kevin & Lora Journey, Action Rent -All & Events
RRSC Code Amendments Page 5 of 5 V0f BISHOW
Bishow Testimony March 4, 2024 d� CONSULTING
22
ACTION
RENT-ALL&EVENTS
KEVIN & LORA JOURNEY
OWNERS
OFFICE: 541-726-6517
FAX: 541-726-9665 121 RIVER AVE
ACTIONRENTALLEVENTS Q@GMAIL.COM EUGENE, OR 97404
This letter is being written on behalf of the locally owned small business of Action Rent -All and its 18
employees.
We appreciate and want to thank all the people who put in all the hard work in preparing the RRSC Plan
and the people who have to make the decision of approving, altering or postponing this plan. As the
Planning commissioners you have to ask yourself are we going to support this plan in any way only
because of the hard work put in or are we going to make our decision based on what will be best for
RRSC and the small businesses?
If it's because of the hard work put in, then you will be ignoring:
1. The advice of multiple land use attorneys, land planning and consulting experts who know the
laws and have real life experience in how and what works.
2. The fact that you will be crippling or deleting small business owners.
3. The Opportunity for new future small business owners.
4. The fact that c-2 property owners were not notified properly for there impute.
5. That River Ave is mostly made up of c-2 properties with some buildings that sit hundreds of feet
off the street and a sewer treatment plant. We are not part of the corridor plan that the RRSC
pian was meant to address. We are a convenient business street meant to support our local
customers who have the right to expand, grow and give back to the neighborhood who built
their businesses.
6. The fact that our businesses or land will be worth substantially less with these changes and or
possibly not be able to sell.
7. That the city has said they did not target any businesses but then says "We want to go away
from automotive uses"
8. The concern that many commissioners have voiced about hurting small businesses.
9. The fact that this is what a very small percentage of residence want and do not understand the
impact of this and not what c-2 owners want. This is based on my informal poling of our
hundreds of customers and businesses that we talked to who knew nothing or very little about
it.
10. That 1 of the Community Organization Board Members has raised concerns about if the plan is
ready or should be implemented.
If you truly want to help small business, then have a plan that helps them not one that is a slow
death sentence by making it impractical or a non conforming business that cannot expand and
grow with the community.
23
From: Micheal Reeder
To: Eugene RR -SC Plan; *Eugene Mayor, City Council. and City Manager
Cc: PATT MEEKER
Subject: River Rd/Santa Clara Plan & Proposed Code Amendments
Date: Saturday, March 2, 2024 11:26:25 AM
Attachments: imaae001.ona
Reeder to Mavor & City Council (Clemens Marina) 3-2-2024.Ddf
[EXTERNAL l�
Dear Elana:
Please see the attached letter on behalf of my clients regarding their opposition to the proposed
code amendments, City Files MA 23-5 & CA 23-3. Please include this email and its attached letter
into the record on this matter. Please note that I plan to provide oral testimony to supplement
this letter at the March 12th public hearing.
There is no connection between the RR/SC Neighborhood Plan and the proposed code
amendments and it conflicts with the currently adopted and acknowledged land use regulations.
Lastly, the proposed code amendments would jeopardize my clients' local business and the jobs it
provides. My clients respectfully request that the City Council not adopt the proposed code
amendments.
Respectfully,
Mike
Law Office of Mike Reeder
Oremn land Use law
Office: (541) 225-8777 1 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.
24
Law Office of Mike Reeder
Oregon Land Use Law
March 2, 2024
Sent Via Email: RRSCPlangeugene-or.gov
Mayor Vinis and Eugene City Council
c/o Elena Domingo, Associate Planner
Eugene Planning Division
99 West 10�h Avenue
Eugene, OR 97401
RE: RRSC Plan and Code Amendments
Eugene Files MA 23-5 and CA 23-3 & County File 509-PA23-05532
Meeker Family/Clemens Marina Post -hearing Letter
Dear Mayor Vinis and Councilors:
I represent Chuck and Patt Meeker, the Meeker Family LLC, the Meeker Family
Limited Partnership and Clemens Marina, Inc. Previously, I provided letters to the Planning
Commission on October 6, 2023, October 17, 2023 and then again on November 28, 2023
regarding the proposed code amendments. I also provided oral testimony at the Planning
Commission public hearing on October 17t',. I supplement that letter here. I write to emphasis
for you, the elected officials, that the proposed code amendments are bad public policy and
are not valid.
I. The proposed code amendments should not be considered at this time.
My clients encourage you to ask two fundamental questions:
(1) Why are code amendments proposed as part of the proposed adoption of the
Neighborhood Plan, and
(2) Where in the proposed Neighborhood Plan is there text to justify the need
to make to proposed code changes?
My clients respectfully request that you not adopt an
4 code amendments at this time.
Adopting a long-range planning document such as the proposed Neighborhood Plan is a separate
and discrete task that is unnecessarily complicated with proposed code amendments. Code
amendments must be consistent with the City's adopted and acknowledged land use
regulations, including the Metro Plan, the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan. It must also be
consistent with the 19 statewide planning goals.
1 25
Meeker Fanul37/Clemens Marnda
AIA 23-5/CA 23-3/509-PA23-05532
March 2, 2024 2
Not only are the proposed code provisions not justified by the currently adopted land
use regulations, they are not even consistent with the proposed Neighborhood Plan. I cannot find
any text in the proposed Neighborhood Plan that would remotely be adequate justification for
imposing these staff proposed code amendments. The justification seems to come from some
amorphous notion from staff that "the totality of the work from 2017 to current" "[vas]
expressed in community input"1. However, there is no documentation in the record that I am
aware to support this claim.
In any case, the ultimate policy decisions in the land use code should flow from the
City's long-range planning documents: the Metro Plan, the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan
and any applicable refinement plan. The proposed code amendments here are simply an
arbitrary expression of staff desires unsupported by an adequate factual basis.
II. The proposed code amendments are not valid land use regulations.
During the Planning Commission review of the proposed code amendments my client
provided a conceptual site plan, produced by Carol Schirmer. This conceptual site plan
illustrates how the proposed code amendments impose new and restrictive design standards
that would negatively affect my clients' business and make it difficult, if not impossible, to
expand its existing business.
As noted previously, the proposed code amendments to the C-2 zone, that would apply
only to the River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods, will prohibit certain uses on my clients'
property that are currently permitted. If approved, this proposed code amendment -,will result
in the C-2 zoned portion of the Clemens Marina site becoming a nonconforming use. Making
a use a Nonconforming use is relegating the use to zoning purgatory.
Expansion of nonconforming uses is prohibited. Eugene Code 9.1220(3) states: "No
legal nonconforming use may be replaced by a different type of nonconforming use, nor may
any legal nonconforming use be expanded or intensified." Determining when a use is
expanded and/or intensified is an inherently subjective standard for which a typical business
owner may not be able to practically understand. Such code language severely curtails hiring
and investment in an existing business. Obtaining financing for business maintenance and
expansion is difficult, if not impossible. As such, the proposed code amendments to prohibit
boat and watercraft (RV and Motor Vehicle) sales and service are inconsistent with the Envision
Eugene Comprehensive Plan.
Metro Plan, I-5, states in relevant part:
' Page 9 of 21 of staff's November 14, 2023 agenda packet, page 3 of the November 1411, memo from Terri
Harding.
Office phone: (541) 225-8777 375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205
mreeder@oregonlanduse.com Eugene, Oregon 97401 26
oregonlanduse.com
Meeker Family/Clemens Marnia
IIIA 23-5/CA 23-3/509-PA23-05532
March 2, 2024
"In all cases, the Metro Plan is the guiding document for regional
comprehensive land use planning and city -specific plans may be adopted
for local comprehensive land use planning. Refinement plans and
policies must be consistent with applicable provisions in the Metro Plan
or the applicable local comprehensive plan." (Emphasis mine).
Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan, I-3, states in relevant part:
"New land use policies 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." (Emphasis mine).
a. Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan policies
Policy 3.5 Business retention and expansion, states:
"Facilitate the retention and growth of existing businesses in the
community."
3
The proposed code amendments that make existing businesses nonconforming do the
exact opposite of what Policy 3.5 commands. Clearly the proposed code amendments violate
Policy 3.5 of Envision Eugene and threaten the viability of my clients' local business.
b. Statewide Planning Goals
The code amendment proposal is not consistent with state-wide planning goals.
Specifically, the proposed code amendments violate state-wide planning Goal 2 (Land Use
Planning) and Goal 9 (Economic Development) and should therefore be rejected.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning —
The statewide planning goal for "land use planning," Goal 2, states in relevant part:
"To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a
basis for all decision[s] and actions related to use of land and to assure
an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions...***
All land use plans shall include identification of issues and problems,
inventories and other factual information for each applicable statewide
planning goal, evaluation of alternative courses of actions and ultimate
policy choices., taking into consideration social, economic, energy and
environmental needs... ***
Office phone: (541) 225-8777 I 375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205
27
mreeder@oregonlanduse.com Eugene, Oregon 97401
oregonlanduse.com
Meeker Family/Clemens A/larnia
ATA 23-5/CA 23-3/509-PA23-05532
March 2, 2024 4
The plans shall be the basis for specific implementation measures. 'these
measures shall be consistent with and adequate to carry out the plans.
Each plan and related implementation measure shall be coordinated with
plans of affected governmental units."
The proposed code amendments are required to be coordinated -,with and be consistent
with the adopted land use plans, including the Metro Plan and the Envision Eugene Comprehensive
Plan. However, there is no factual basis for reducing the maximum building height of the C-2
zone or imposing a blanket prohibition of RV/Boat & Watercraft/Motor Vehicle sales and
service in the C-2 zone in this area. The impacts to the City's buildable lands inventory have
not been addressed.
part:
The Envision Eugene Residential Land Supply Study (RLSS), Part 1, Page 12, states in
"Eugene has some additional land supply in the form of new housing
that will be added through redevelopment of developed residential and
commercial land."
The RLSS Table 7, Part V — Page 4, identifies 29 acres (in addition to "Downtown"
capacity) of Commercial land to be used for High Density Residential between the 2012 and
2032 planning period. Reducing the height of Commercial development from 120 feet to 60
feet necessarily reduces the City's High Density Residential Inventory (as well as reducing the
impetus for actual High Density Residential development). Eliminating half of the
development potential for residential in the C-2 zone in the RR -SC area frustrates the City
Council's ultimate policy choice to grow up and not out and utilize Commercial property to
meet the demand of residential land. Had the City not counted some Commercial property,
which includes C-2 property in the RR -SC area, the City would have had to account for the
land deficiency in other ways, including possibly expanding the UGB for residential.
Terri Harding's November 14, 2023 memo, on page 4, seems to attempt to justify the
height reductions in regards to the Buildable Lands Inventory for Employment, but she failed
to address the impact that the height reduction would have on the Residential land supply
inventory. The City justified not expanding the urban growth boundary for residential lands,
in part, because the C-2 zone permits High-density housing. Lowering the allowed height for
potential housing by half in this area undercuts the assumptions used by the City to justify not
expanding the UGB for residential land. Where the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan
attempted to push development upwards rather than outward, the proposed code
amendments, if adopted, would do the opposite. The City has not provided an adequate factual
basis for the proposed code amendments.
Goal 9: Economic Development —
The statewide planning goal for economic development, Goal 9, states in relevant part:
Office phone: (541) 225-8777 375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205
mreeder@oregonlanduse.com Eugene, Oregon 97401 28
oregonlanduse.com
Meeker Family/Clemens Marnia
MA 23-5/CA 23-3/509-PA23-05532
Alarch 2, 2024 5
"To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of
economic activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of the
state."
The proposed code amendments prohibit opportunities for a "variety of economic activities
vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens." Narrowing the range of
permitted uses in the C-2 zone does the opposite of what Goal 9 is intended to promote.
Please see the attached testimony from Hewes Marine Co., Inc and North River Boats, which
both demonstrate how the proposed code amendments jeopardize the jobs of their employees.
III. Conclusion
The proposed code amendments do the following: (1) restrict certain uses in the C-2
zone, (2) impose various development standards for new development, and (3) reduce the
building height from 120 to 60 feet.
None of these three actions are justified by any existing or proposed land use
regulations, including the proposed Neighborhood Plan. The proposed code amendments violate
statewide planning goals and the policies of the Metro Plan and the Envision Eugene Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed code amendments should therefore be rejected.
Attachments
Respectfully submitted,
Micheal M. Reeder
Attorney for the Meeker Family and
Clemens Marina
Office phone: (541) 225-8777 I 375 W. 4th Ave., Suite 205
mreeder@oregonlanduse.com Eugene, Oregon 97401 29
oregonlanduse.com
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 10`x' 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
Re 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
30
Date: 11-2-23
To: Whom it may concern
Clemens Marine became a Hewescraft dealer in 1993. They quickly built a reputation
with outstanding service and have become one of our biggest dealers.
Clemens Marine was a leader in adapting their business to sell clean -burning, 4 -stroke
outboards. Four-stroke motors emit 97% less air and water pollution than old two-
stroke motors. Chuck Meeker even did a test with a 9.9HP kicker motor. it took 12
hours at idle to consume one gallon of fuel.
Another trend that Clemens Marine has promoted is the use of electric bow mount
trolling motors. Our Hewescraft fishing boats are designed to troll at very slow speeds
with these engines that have zero emissions.
Clemens Marine has three locations and totals more unit boat sales than any other
Hewescraft dealer. Their store in Eugene, OR is a vital part of our dealer network that
keeps Hewescraft boats selling and 200 people employed here in Colville, WA.
All of us here at Hewes Marine Company understand the need for conservation and
stewardship of the climate and environment. We sell fishing boats, and as such we
support healthy fish stocks, clean water, and unspoiled outdoor locations to sustain us
as individuals and to keep our businesses and livelihoods viable in perpetuity. Changes
to your neighborhood zoning codes will do little to help the environment, water, climate,
and natural habitats. However, it absolutely has the potential to damage employment
opportunities and family livelihoods in our small, rural community.
We encourage the planning commission to maintain the current C2 and C3
classifications allowing the sale of Hewescraft boats on these types of properties. This
will enable the many jobs that rely on such to continue to flourish. And the investment
made can continue to protect the environment.
Dave Hewes & Clint Kirry
Hewes Marine Co., Inc.
800-326-6594
www.hewescraft.com
31
From: Hillary Kittleson
To: Eugene RR -SC Plan; *Eugene Mayor, City Council. and City Manager
Cc: HARDING Terri L
Subject: River Road/Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan Code Amendments
Date: Thursday, February 29, 2024 11:12:42 AM
[EXTERNAL ]
Dear Mayor Vinis and Members of the City Council:
At the recent Council Work Session on the River Road/Santa Clara Neighborhood Plan you and other
councilors expressed some reservations about the proposed code amendments to be adopted
concurrently with the neighborhood plan. I want to urge you to not only adopt those code
amendments but consider additional language regarding the C-2 zone advocated by the board of the
River Road Neighborhood Organization.
As a member of Santa Clara River Road Implementation Planning Team (SCRRIPT) for several years, I
helped host a number of neighborhood listening sessions before the initiation of the plan, attended
public meetings to get feedback at various stages of the plan as it was developed, and helped
prepare the land use section as a member of the Land Use Working Group.
One thing that was strongly supported by SCRRIPT was the need for implementing code
amendments at the time the plan was adopted. Otherwise, the document would have no
teeth and would lust be another tome of fine words to set on a shelf. We had this discussion
at SCRRIPT many times and communicated that position to City staff.
The code amendments before you are the minimum needed to guide neighborhood
development and salvage as much as possible of the document's vision and values. Adding a
requirement for first floor commercial use in residential buildings located in the C2 zone
would make a significant positive difference.
Please support the adoption of the minimal code amendments as proposed, and direct staff to
prepare neighborhood -specific amendments to the C2 Zone to require first floor commercial.
Sincerely,
Hillary Kittleson
995 Elkay Drive
Eugene, OR 97404
Sent from Mail for Windows
32
From: DOMINGO Elena M
To: Eugene RR -SC Plan
Subject: FW: RR -SC Neighborhood Plan comment
Date: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 2:08:18 PM
Attachments: RR -SC Neighborhood Plan Comment.pdf
Please include in the record.
-----Original Message -----
From: SELSER Lindsay R <LSelser@eugene-or.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 1:55 PM
To: DOMINGO Elena M <EDomingo@eugene-or.gov>
Cc: HARDING Terri L <THarding@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: FW: RR -SC Neighborhood Plan comment
FYI
-----Original Message -----
From: steve norris <steve norris@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2024 10:59 AM
To: *Eugene Mayor, City Council, and City Manager <MayorCouncilandCityManager@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: RR -SC Neighborhood Plan comment
[EXTERNAL ]
Thank you for your time and considerations! Apologies for the late submission.
Steve
33
Mayor, Councilors, and City Manager; 2-21-24
Regarding your ongoing discussion of the "RR -SC Neighborhood Plan" and 'code' in general; below is a
photo update (photos taken yesterday) of the 'Howard Meadows' development — also a question and
comment or two. I sincerely hope you have each had or will take an opportunity to visit the site to gain
valuable perspective.
IMO (which is as subjective as it gets) - based on recent State rulings and what City 'code' and City
Planning now allow: it really is appalling to see the negative impacts a developer (if they choose) can
have on individuals, neighborhoods and our, collective, Eugene community.
Many of 'Howard Meadows' potential negative impacts, mentioned in previous comments, are quickly
becoming very real. Following the "for every action there's a reaction" refrain, the question now is; what
comes next? It is understood that, unfortunately, some decisions are out of Eugene policy -makers'
control. For those development decisions that are in your control, it is imperative to make good,
proactive ones. 'Howard Meadows' serves as a cautionary example of how important that is.
The threat of erosion and potential flooding problems for neighbors of 'Howard Meadows' is obvious
now. The City -approved, non-sensical (IMO) design to raise the elevation of 'Howard Meadows' did not
include measures to address stormwater concerns related to the property -line embankments the fill
created. Now, rain erodes those embankments and the 8'-10' wooden fence the developer is installing
will be the only 'retaining' apparatus. Photos don't really do it justice. See the situation on the ground at
'Howard Meadows' to realize how perpetually awful and potentially dangerous it is for those neighbors.
To combat the invasion of privacy 'Howard Meadows' brings with it, one neighbor plans to make the
developers' 8'-10' fence twelve -feet tall, to block the new buildings' ground floor sight -line. They also
plan at least two twenty -foot -tall 'art installations' to block the second story sight -lines. Their reasoning;
both will be safe constructs and any 'code' they might violate will be contested and eventually
overturned, they believe, at the State level - as being too subjective.
Neighbors dread what it will look like when the 40 -plus new households of 'Howard Meadows' start
looking for parking spaces nearby. What lessons did the City and County learn from the'ECCO
Apartments' example? What lessons did those neighbors learn? What action can either City or County or
neighbors take to mitigate the matter? To get a good sense of the issue, time your site -visit to 'Howard
Meadows' to coincide with the time parents come to pick up kids from the 3 schools nearby.
Gardening is central to the 'quality of life' for many of 'Howard Meadows' long-established neighbors
and to the 'character' of River Road (the "River and Garden District"). Now, buildings are so tall and close
that those on the West side of the development will not get sun on their plots until almost noon. They
ask; 'isn't there a solar 'code' meant to protect adjoining properties from that?'
The only constant is change, as we all know. Not long -ago residential density was, obviously, a fraction of
what it is now and Council was discussing 'Context Sensitive Design' as a development strategy. I hope
you and the County will recognize — and are able to act on - solutions in the 'RR -SC Neighborhood Plan'
meant to bridge sensibly and equitably the 'then' to the 'what comes next' for our community.
Sincerely,
Steve Norris, River Road
34
Photo taken from the
West side — behind
the second 4-plex
under construction.
The fill and fence get
higher the further N
(left) it goes. The
bottom 2' — 3' of the
new fence still needs
to be boarded,
followed by more fill
up to the back 'patio'
of the new buildings.
Taken from the NE
corner. Due to the
elevation change, the
top of the foundation
for the new 2 -story 4-
plex is halfway up the
existing residence.
More fill, 'patios' and
fencing to follow.
Taken at the
intersection of Lake and
Howard. Note repeated
parking in/near the
stormwater swale.
Camera lens was not
wide-angle enough to
include the three other
(construction -related)
vehicles parked to the
right — in the
unimproved Howard
ROW - also near/in the
swale.
35
From:
Ken Beeson
To:
Euaene RR -SC Plan
Subject:
RRSC Code Amendments
Date:
Friday, February 16, 2024 11:02:19 AM
IYou don't often get email from ken4395@gmail.com. Learn why this is im op rtant
[EXTERNAL
February 16, 2024
Mayor Lucy Vinis and Eugene City Councilors
Dear Mayor Vinis and Councilors:
My name is Ken Beeson.
I urge you to not approve the proposed amendment to the Eugene Land Use Code to limit building height in the C2
Community Commercial zone in the River Road - Santa Clara (RRSC) neighborhoods to 65 feet (current limit is
120 feet). This code amendment is one of several coming to you for approval consideration along with the proposed
RRSC Neighborhood Plan.
As you know, I currently serve on the Eugene Planning Commission. I am providing this testimony on my own
behalf, and not on behalf of the Planning Commission or any individual members of the Commission.
The main reason put forward for this amendment has been that reducing the maximum height of buildings in the
RRSC area has been a high priority in the neighborhood planning process since 2017.
I believe a substantial reduction in this maximum height standard in the C2 zone in the RRSC area would not serve
the best interests of the Eugene community. I also think that if the current 120 ft standard is maintained - consistent
with the rest of the city - the potential adverse impacts are quite limited.
Eugene needs housing and amending our existing development code to reduce our capacity to develop housing in
one area of Eugene isn't consistent with virtually any other current city plan, policy or initiative to address our
housing shortage.
I offer the following points for you to consider in deliberations on this question:
• The C2 zone, although limited across the city (approximately 5% of zoned land), provides relatively
substantial opportunity for additional housing in the form of mixed use development (ground level
commercial with residential upper stories). A good share of this "opportunity" comes in the form of vertical
development capacity inherent in the current 120 ft maximum height development standard.
• The C2 areas (as is the case with RRSC) also tend to be situated predominantly along arterials with
substantial infrastructure in place and also generally aligning with frequent mass transit service that complies
with state requirements (4 stops/hour) for urban transit zones. I believe these are the areas we want increased
density and more housing. Limiting potential development in an urban zone intended for density is at odds
with our overall ability to address our housing shortage.
• If the 120 ft standard is maintained and there are some buildings higher than 65 ft constructed in the area in
the next 10 - 20 years, it's likely they could be mixed use as mentioned above and would offer a mixture of
higher density housing, jobs, businesses, and services where most people could meet their daily needs
without relying on cars.
36
• Finally, most of the C2 area in RRSC is confined to River Road and River Avenue and most does not abut
existing R-1 properties. If the 120 ft standard is maintained, the chances are low that buildings higher than 5
stories will be constructed adjacent to R-1 property and, in the event that did occur, the code currently
includes effective and reasonable transition standards.
In general, I believe we should be cautious when considering implementation of land use code changes that might
reduce or restrict our existing community capacity for development of additional housing. I also think our
development standards - particularly in 2024 - should generally facilitate housing development.
With this proposed amendment, you're being asked to substantially reduce the C2 height standard which arguably
will limit the potential development of housing, particularly in an urban area where we plan and provide support for
this development. I believe this is one place where we want this density and development.
I appreciate your consideration of my perspective on this question, and thank you for your work on behalf of our
community.
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Beeson
Ward 2
37
DOMINGO Elena M
From: HANSEN Alissa H
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 12:17 PM
To: Eugene RR -SC Plan
Subject: FW: RR/SC Neighborhood Plan
This email came in to the main planning email inbox, not the email designated for River Road -Santa Clara Neighborhood
Plan testimony, but please include in the record.
From: GIOELLO Nick R <NGioello@eugene-or.gov>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 3:44 PM
To: VALLENTYNE Valerie H <VVallentyne@eugene-or.gov>
Cc: FLOCK Gabriel <GFlock@eugene-or.gov>; HANSEN Alissa H <AHansen@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: FW: RR/SC Neighborhood Plan
Well, it's addressed to the Planning Commission, so I've included Gabe and Alissa, one of whom I suppose will forward it
on.
From: Eugene Planning <Planning@ci.eugene.or.us>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2023 8:17 AM
To: GIOELLO Nick R <NGioello@eugene-or.gov>
Subject: FW: RR/SC Neighborhood Plan
Hi Nick,
I am not sure, but I think this email would go to you. Please let me know if it should go to someone else instead.
Thank you,
Valerie Vallentyne
Planning Specialist
City of Eugene I PDD
99 W. 101h Ave., Eugene, OR
Phone: 541.682.5389
AM
WBuilding & Permit Services
ZONING AND LAND USE
https://www.eugene-or.gov/2128/Land-Use-Code
https://www.eugene-or.gov/3208/Land-Use-Information
https://www.eugene-or.gov/2040/Fees-and-Forms
https://Pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/ApplicationSearch
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/972el7b24da94f849c6O68872108968f
38
From: Dawn Lesley <dawnlesley6@gmaiLcom>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2023 8:05 PM
To: Eugene Planning <PlanninR@ci.eugene.or.us>
Subject: RR/SC Neighborhood Plan
You don't often get email from dawnlesley6ftmail.com. Learn why this is important
[EXTERNAL Q]
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express my deep support for the neighborhood plan that was developed over the last several years in the
River Road and Santa Clara neighborhoods.
I have never before in my adult life seen a neighborhood process occur so deliberately, with so much broad and deep
community involvement. Our hopes and dreams are embedded throughout this document. Hours and days and weeks
and years of our lives have been spent carefully considering all the details and the broad strokes. We've listened to each
other, argued with each other, and then listened again, each time strengthening our relationships, and deepening the
soul of this document.
I urge you to approve its adoption.
Thank you for your consideration, and for your service to Eugene.
Sincerely,
Dawn Lesley
Longtime Santa Clara resident
Elected member of the SCCO Executive Board, here speaking for myself only
39
From:
To:
Date:
Attachments:
[EXTEIRNAI
PATT MEEKER
Eugene RR -SC Plan
Wednesday, November 29, 2023 1:19:56 PM
20231129132523885.odf
Hi Ihave one more I just received. Hopefully its not too late.
Pott
40
Proposed River Road -Santa
Clara i, ,.. Code Amendments
(City Files: MA, 23-5 and ,: County
We the undersigned Opose thedraft River Road
Santa • .'1 and the
draft CodeAmendments currently being proposed '1 Planning
NAME (print)
BUSINESS NAME
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
�w
F
! V
k
t
LU i A, Too quo
Sft rAf %
V erre.
41