Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-16 Work Session EUGENE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA September 26, 2016 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th Eugene,Oregon97401 MeetingofSeptember26,2016; HerHonorMayorKittyPiercyPresiding Councilors 5:30p.m.CITYCOUNCILWORKSESSION HarrisHall,125East8Avenue th A.WORKSESSION SouthWillamettePublicForumNextSteps J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M160926\\A160926S-WS.doc ¶¶¶ȁ¤´¦¤­¤®±ȁ¦®µȁ J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M160926\\A160926S-WS.doc ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY www.eugeneor.gov ISSUESTATEMENT BACKGROUND J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M160926\\S160926A.docx NEXTSTEPS COUNCILOPTIONS CITY-!.!'%2Ȍ3RECOMMENDATION SUGGESTEDMOTIONS ATTACHMENTS FORMOREINFORMATION J:\\CMO\\2016 Council Agendas\\M160926\\S160926A.docx ATTACHMENTA ATTACHMENT B WE CAN Walkable Eugene Citizens Advisory Network Collaborative Community Goal Setting Frequently Asked Questions WHAT IS COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY GOAL SETTING? "Collaborative Community Goal Setting" (CCGS) is a community process that provides a bridge between the broad Envision Eugene Pillars and goals, and the specific, on-the-ground strategies that will be developed in localized planning efforts, such as refinement plans or area plans. It would provide a common understanding of terms and concepts across neighborhoods and other interested parties, and would provide enough specific information to ensure that the benefits and burdens of growth are distributed among different areas fairly. It would also help different areas are able to work collaboratively towards city-wide and cross-neighborhood goals, while also providing flexibility for them to develop specific, localized solutions and policies that meet their neighborhood needs. WHY IS THIS BEING SUGGESTED? For some time now, our city has struggled with how to conduct constructive, positive discussions that lead to plans that achieve broad support within our community, and lead to tangible actions to achieve the widely-supported goals. This difficulty has become most obvious recently with the controversy surrounding the South Willamette Special Area Zone. A key lesson learned from the proposed SWSAZ and associated process is that the City of Eugene needs to back up and develop a bridge between Envision Eugene’s broad goals and objectives, and the more specific plans and complex zoning needed to achieve those goals. Without such a community-supported bridging process, and without clarity regarding common goals, concepts and terminology, neighborhood residents living in affected areas will feel left out and threatened, will lack information needed for productive informed engagement, and will likely strongly oppose proposed changes. The result, as we have seen, will be continued stalemate and a loss of public trust. Through Collaborative Community Goal Setting, we hop to ensure neighborhood livability and economic vibrancy while also accomplishing broader city-wide goals, thus maintaining the integrity of Envision Eugene’s seven pillars. WHAT WOULD THE OUTCOMES BE? The outcome of the Collaborative Community Goal Setting process would be a specific recommendation to City Council, for City Council to vote on, from the community Team that answers the following questions: 1.For each of the six key transit corridors and downtown, how much new development of each type (multi-family, single family, missing middle, etc.) is each area's "share" to accomplish broader community goals and appropriately manage growth? 2.How many sites for homeless and very-low-income housing are needed in each region to ensure that these needed facilities are distributed fairly and not concentrated in one area? 3.What areas along the corridors should be the initial focus for localized planning efforts, with the understanding that the exact boundaries may change as the local teams delve into the details and additional community outreach will need to occur if that happens....For example, River Road is a long corridor-- is there a specific part of River Road that it makes sense to focus on first? 4.What infrastructure and service investments are the highest priority for each area, given their relative strengths and needs, to provide information for the local team to expand upon further? This would include things such as parks, commercial centers, transportation infrastructure, etc. For example, a true 20- minute neighborhood needs parks/open space, commercial areas, transit, etc. nearby. Perhaps, during the course of this process, it is determined that the West 11th corridor has comparatively good transportation resources, but lacks parkland, while South Willamette has a comparatively good supply of parks/open space, but faces more transportation challenges. This analysis would help focus and put into context the refinement-plan level discussions. 5.A “lexicon” that provides shared and common understanding of terms and concepts that will be used for later localized planning, as well as data gathering and reporting on the success of various initiatives. WHO WOULD PARTICIPATE? The specific details will still need to be determined, as part of an ongoing discussion. However, several different types of groups would have roles in the process: City Council and the Planning Commission will have their established governmental roles-- City Council will both initiate the process and be the final decision making body. The Planning Commission to review citizen involvement processes, review the Team's recommendation, and vote on whether to forward that recommendation to City Council. The Team is made up of citizens of various backgrounds, charged with working collaborative and constructively to create a recommendation to City Council that answer the above questions. The Team is also responsible for both soliciting and incorporating feedback from citizens into their thinking, and for explaining the rationale for their decisions to citizens. The Team will be large enough to represent diverse interests, yet small enough to allow for productive, collaborative discussion and true multi-directional conversation While the specific configuration and selection process of the Team still need to be determined, participants could include: Representatives from relevant neighborhood associations o Residents (including both homeowners and renters) from the relevant o areas Property owners and landlords from the relevant areas o Business owners and employees who work in the relevant areas o Representatives of local development and real estate interests o Representatives of transportation interests o Experts in relevant topic areas (climate recovery, architecture, services o to low-income individuals, etc.) Representatives of city commissions, including Planning, Human Rights, o and Sustainability Representatives of other key stakeholders (for example, the University) o Representatives from the city- staff and council o All citizens will be able to provide input to members of the Team, staff, Planning Commission, and Council, and a wide variety of tools will be used to ensure that any interested citizen is able to have clear information and provide feedback. A facilitator --a neutral expert in collaborative decision making and land use processes without a specific interest in the outcome of the discussions--will have a responsibility to ensure that a code of conduct and civility is being followed by members of the Team, will assist with logistics (times and locations for meeting, coordinating between Team and City Staff, ensuring that requested data is gathered and presented clearly), will keep the conversation stays on track towards achieving the goal, will ensure that all decisions reflect the collaboration of the entire Team, and the Team's discussion is balanced so that no particular interests or points of view are drowned out. City Staff provide technical expertise, supply information/data and context, do the technical work to translate of translating the decisions into official language (including checking back with the Team to ensure the decision was captured correctly), shepherd the recommendation through the official approval process, and in conjunction with the Team, facilitator, and City Council, conducts public outreach. HOW DOES THIS CONNECT TO OTHER PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED, SUCH AS REFINEMENT PLANS? Collaborative Community Goal Setting is a complementary process that would precede, but not replace, localized planning efforts such as refinement plans or area plans. Areas and neighborhoods should still to work to create a refinement plan or other localized plans. Since all refinement plans must be consistent with the city-wide plan, the Collaborative Community Goal Setting process helps to ensure that refinement plans are successfully aligned and help achieve both local and city-wide goals. The process can also help collaborative resolve conflicting interests or needs among different neighborhoods. After Collaborative Community Goal Setting and localized/refinement planning, there will need to be a third step of implementation, where projects and initiatives identified in the localized planning efforts are scoped and added to the work plans of relevant departments and refinement plan policies are translated into code language and added to the City land use code. HOW DOES THIS CONNECT TO ENVISION EUGENE? The Collaborative Community Goal Setting process is not a reworking of Envision Eugene. The Seven Pillars of Envision Eugene, including concepts such as focusing growth along key transit corridors and promoting twenty minute neighborhoods, are widely supported by the community. Collaborative Community Goal Setting is a process to involve citizens in implementing the vision Envision Eugene outlines. HOW ARE CITIZENS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS? Citizens in Eugene are involved in many ways. First, all citizens will have multiple opportunities at all stages of the process to become informed about what is being recommended and provide input and feedback. Outreach will occur throughout the Team's work to develop their recommendation, and upon release of the recommendation before it goes to the Planning Commission. The Team will share the reasoning behind the recommendation and incorporate additional comments. Once the recommendation is presented to the Planning Commission, public notification and opportunity for public comment would follow established city procedures (i.e. Hearings and comment sessions prior to both Planning Commission and City Council decisions.) WHAT ARE THE STEPS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN? After City Council approves the CCGS concept as the next step, they will need to select a facilitator, a method for appointing the Team determined and the Team appointed, and begin initial citizen outreach. The Team would meet multiple times over several months to develop consensus recommendations and develop the lexicon. After the recommendation has been drafted, there would be additional public outreach and revision in order to verify the recommendation captures the community consensus. Finally, the recommendation would go through the established Planning Commission and City Council approval processes. This would probably take about a year to a year and a half. Once the Collaborative Community Goal Setting Process has been completed, individual areas could create their own localized plans, such as refinement plans. HOW ARE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS INVOLVED? For those neighborhoods that have active Neighborhood Associations, the Neighborhood Association would play an important part in helping to provide a forum for gathering input and discussion with the community at large. The specifics of how the Team is selected still require work, but given that this is a city-wide process, the method would have to be fair and equitable for both citizens who are well represented by their Neighborhood Associations as well as those who live in places where neighborhood associations don't exist or don't have the resources to provide representation. HOW WAS THIS PROCESS CREATED? Removing the South Willamette Special Area Zone from consideration lead to the question "what comes next?" Discussions among many groups and individuals-- those who opposed the SWSAZ, those who supported it, and those who had no strong opinion about the SWSAZ but cared about the broader community goals-- indicated that a step had been missed between the broad Envision Eugene process and the specific South Willamette process. The concept of Collaborative Community Goal Setting was developed in active collaboration with many different groups and individuals, reflecting a multitude of perspectives and interests. What they shared was a desire for a solution that would move us towards a truly community supported outcome. ATTACHMENTC MINUTES EugeneCityCouncil Avenue HarrisHall,125East8 th Eugene,Oregon97401 September19,2016 6:00p.m. CouncilorsPresent: CouncilorsAbsent: Public Forum on South Willamette Planning: 1. 1. David Monk – SW-SAZ created unnecessary consequences; meaningful public participation is needed. 2. Ed Moye – We need infill that won’t destroy neighborhoods; eager to proceed with Clark/Brown proposal. 3. Vic Hariton – Current process is causing distrust; refinement plan is needed; support Clark/Brown proposal. 4. Sue Wolling – Planning needs to be in the framework of Envision Eugene; need an intermediate step. 5. Josh Newman – Talk to impacted people first; need process to bridge Envision Eugene and refinement plan. 6. Eliza Kashinsky – Support incremental growth in neighborhoods and Envision Eugene; need a community process to clarify language and process. 7. Emily Semple – Eager to form a team for a refinement plan and community planning team on this. 8. Gerry Meenaghan – Collaborate with neighborhoods on a refinement plan; walkability needs to apply across the city. 9. Ron Bevirt – Need to focus on residents of affected area and get input from them; need refinement plan. 10. Janet Bevirt – Refinement plan needs to be the foundation of future planning efforts. 11. Bill Aspegren – New approach needed; need a refinement plan like Clark/Brown proposal. 12. Mary Brorby – Process was forced upon residents; more response from City on issues are needed. 13. Brian Weaver – City is opposed to community-based process; stakeholders are last to have input. 14. Jennifer Smith – Rent in Eugene is too high; workforce housing is needed; citywide plan and goals are needed. 15. Howie Bonnett – Willamette Street needs a lot of help. 16. Eben Fodor – Lots of fundamental problems with SW-SAZ; building heights a big concern; support walkability. 17. Christine Sundt – CCRs for four affected subdivisions are valid and could become a litigation issue. 18. Richard Sundt – Support densification by multi-use buildings and Clark/Brown proposal. 19. Joyce Eaton – Support refinement plan; engagement process was lacking in SW-SAZ process. 20. Bonny McCornack – Reject premise that density is needed; sprawl will continue unless other action is taken. 21. Ralph McDonald – Trees were at risk with SW-SAZ; affects climate change efforts. 22. Pam Wooddell – Affordability and sustainability issues need to be addressed. 23. Lena Houston-Davisson – Move forward with refinement process and community engagement. 24. Peter Gallagher – Clear answers to questions by Planning Department are needed. 25. Seth Sadofsky – City missed a step with SW-SAZ; take a step back and have a community process. 26. Joshua Skov – Engage residents; be clear about values; manage growth explicitly. 27. Ron Funke – Drive times are too long; infrastructure needs to be relocated underground. MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 19, 2016 Page 1 Public Forum 28. Eleanor Hamel – Concerned about losing real estate values; like street improvements; more street parking. 29. Linda Duggan – Need a City-run community center; Willamette Street is worse than before. 30. Tara Jones – Need to create multi-use buildings and greenways. 31. Peter Esden-Tempski – Refinement plan should be basis for moving forward. 32. Kathy Ging – Solar access protections needed. 33. Margie James – Poor communication between residents and city; refinement plan is needed. 34. Gay Anne Brinda – Encourage looking at Portland’s planning process. 35. Mia Nelson – Biggest challenge is lack of affordable housing; consider needs of renters. 36. Cindy Allen – Neighborhood-specific refinement plans needed. 37. Randy Prince – We need a citizen planning committee and funding mechanisms. 38. Paul Conte – Engage neighborhoods and create a refinement plan like Jefferson-Westside. 39. Lisa Arkin- SW-SAZ was forced re-zoning; we can’t displace longtime residents. MINUTES – Eugene City Council September 19, 2016 Page 2 Public Forum ATTACHMENTD SOUTH WILLAMETTE PLANNING PUBLIC TESTIMONY From Brian Weaver 08/15/2016 (PleaserecordassubmittedpubliccommentfortheSept.19thforum) Ye s,I'vereadyour invitation and your stated purpose of the September 19th forum, but it continues to be murky, as well as your statement below, and not consistent with what Terri Harding reported in her January 1, 2016 email, titled "Envision Eugene andSouth Willamette Update" Terri claimedthat, "In addition to strengthening theadoption package, usingan alternative strategyto meet the MDR (medium densityresidential) need couldtake some pressure off the area planning strategy now andin the future. Without a legally-binding need to fit in a certain amount of housing, area planning conversations including South Willamette can proceed as neededwithample time to reach a resolution, independent of the UGB adoption package." Please help me understand howEnvision Eugene(UGB adoption package) wasreported by the City as "independent" of MDRplanning in South Willamette, (according to Terri's Jan1, 2016 Update), yet now you say the two"are not separated." Is the January EE & SWupdate no longervalid? If so,when was an newUpdatepublished by the city and where is it? (BTW - thelinkbutton "here"to you you letter: "To read the Mayor's letter to community members clickhere"does not show your letter, instead it goes to the "southwillamette@ci.eugene.or.us"emailaddress.)https://www.eugene- or.gov/2675/South-Willamette-Area-Planning-Updates Please let usknow. Thanks, Brian Weaver PUBLIC TESTIMONY FromEleanorHamel 08/22/2016 I attendedthe South Willamette neighborhood meeting which was informative and well run. That is to say a good meeting, once participants used the microphone. Thereareseveral thingsI'm not certain about. If I understood thenumbers correctly, upto 250 units are suggested with a 2.3 person occupancy. With that number inmind, there couldbe at least 300 additional carsusing the streets. What parking will be provided and what improvements in the infastructure ie: widening roads, is planned? The city busservice is excellent and I use it frequently as I am a senior citizen. However, there are many times a car is necessary. I also walk tothe shops but again driving is unavoidable as there is a limit to what I cancarry home.Asmuch ascutting downon driving is desired, we will always need a car. Apartments built on treed hillsides seems strange given thepropensityof thesoil to slipin parts of Eugene,especially if trees are removed. Level ground would make more sense as a placefor largerstructures. There is some flat openspace next to the communitygardens. The hills area is further from bus service andshops. Thankyouforthe opportunity to put questionsbefore you. I am planning to attend the Septembermeeting. EleanorHamel 206 W 27thAve,Eugene 2 September 2, 2016 To all interested parties: South Willamette Neighbors, in response to the July 21, 2016, invitation from Mayor Kitty Piercy, hereby submit this packet of documentation representing our communitys voice about changes that have been proposed by the City of Eugene in the South Willamette area that would affect the character and current livability of their neighborhoods and properties. This packet includes a transcript of the discussion among community members at the August 16, 2016, Conversation About Neighborhoods; the questions and comments collected prior to that event and submitted to Terri Harding; Ms. Hardings written responses to those questions and comments; a copy of the SWN Survey on Residents Awareness of the Proposed South Willamette Special Area Zone responses gathered between August 12 and September 22, 2015; and the SWN petition to Eugene City Council (conducted between October 2, 2015, and April 4, 2016) with over 600 signatures asking for the suspension of the adoption process for the proposed SW-SAZ plan and to develop a refinement plan to address land use and transportation policies that have broad community support as an appropriate plan for future evolution of the established residential neighborhoods and business in the South Willamette area. The petition further requested Council to direct that this community-based process be guided by Statewide Planning Goal 1 and to ensure that the outcome of this process fully and faithfully conforms to Envision Eugene Pillar #5: Protect, repair and enhance neighborhood livability. Residents of the area as well as many from elsewhere in the City of Eugene have stated unequivocally that the City must allow and encourage community engagement in decisions affecting their properties and that legal requirements, specifically for a refinement plan, must be followed and be authorized by the Eugene City Council before further planning steps are initiated. South Willamette Neighbors further requests that this packet be entered into the public record as testimony to be shared with Council and published on the Citys website prior to their next work session on this council as promised by Mayor Piercy. Thank you. Good Samaritan Society, Tuesday, August 16, 2016, 7-9 PM Organized by South Willamette Neighbors (http://www.swneugene.org) Notetaker/Transcriber: Joyce Eaton 1 70 to 80 people attended the meeting. Christine Sundt (CS) gave the introduction, first asking Neighborhood Association board members or their designees to stand up and introduce themselves. CS said that South Willamette Neighbors (SWN) received 25 questions and comments on the swneugene.org website, plus additional e-mails and Facebook posts. The types of questions were on refinement plans; Clark-Brown initiative; mixed use development; parking & traffic; building heights; legal loopholes; hurdles to prohibit or restrict development; uniform or accurate data; how can we agree on terms such as townhouse or townhome, affordability, missing middle housing; MUPTE; upzoning; what is rationale for using established neighborhoods; how to resolve increased density with other problems it causes; respecting the character of the neighborhood (Envision Eugene pillar); affordable, low & middle income housing. All questions were given to Terri Harding. Any questions not answered today \[will be answered by Terri and put on the website\]. Or, if you want to provide rebuttals to what Terri said, send your comments to swneugeneinfo@gmail.com. All answers, rebuttals, comments will be provided as testimony to the forum. Terri gave an introduction, similar to the one that she gave at the Friendly Area Neighbors meeting in =================================================================================== Good evening, I am Terri Harding, opportunity to introduce myself to you. I have lived in Eugene for 21 years, since moving here to attend Planning school at the University of Oregon in 1995. I have rented a duplex and a single family home in the Jefferson Westside Neighborhood, owned my first home in the Far West Neighborhood, and have owned my current home in the Southwest Hills Neighborhood (SHiNA) since 2007. I love this community and am raising my family here. I started my job with the City of Eugene in 2006. I am motivated to come to work each day to help our community move toward the most livable, sustainable, equitable, and prosperous Eugene imaginable. I value fairness, collaboration, responsible stewardship of resources, and shared learning in pursuit of Sometimes, we make mistakes. The South Willamette Special Area zone is one of those times. One thing we did poorly was to communicate from the beginning of the project what problem we are trying to 1 in square brackets so for these areas, it may not quite be what was said.\] Page . 1 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 solve. We failed to articulate the process in a way that led to clear understanding on the part of interested community members. And, we failed to consistently highlight the impacts of different solutions suggested to solve the problem. These are serious mistakes that need to be fixed, and I personally and the Planning Team as a whole, are committed to fixing them. I am an optimist at heart. I believe we can help the community create a fair process for moving forward, and stand ready to support that work to the best of my professional ability. We have much to offer, once we have earned your trust. I reali me the opportunity to earn it. It is so important to me and to my colleagues, that we find ways to work together toward our common goals. Otherwise, we will not reach that future Eugene I described earlier, and the same high level of livability that we enjoy today. There are many ways to address the problems we face; but it is critical that we do address them, and not ignore them. I see an opportunity for our planners to support neighborhoods in future planning projects, but I will not be advocating for a particular process structure or outcome in the South Willamette Area. We may be asked to offer potential options, or comment on suggested ways of moving forward such as the Clark/Brown proposal. The most powerful way I can think of influencing the structure of a future process, is for community groups to talk to each other about what they would be willing to support. I Thank you Christine an Terri introduced other city staff including Eric Brown (planner), Rene Kane (Neighborhood liaison), Bree Nicolello on the Planning Commission, and George Brown City Councilor. Refinement Plans and Area Planning First question was on Refinement Plans, what are they, and will the city support putting resources toward it? At the beginning of the South Willamette process, city considered refinement plan, but went with Area Planning (AP) Planning at the time the project was initiated. Tangible design based planning (explained in Area Planning Fact Sheet) with 3 steps: 1) community vision, 2) code, 3) public investments to build. This was used in Walnut Station (WS) with 20 pages of code. The key difference between WS and SW-SAZ was the lack of adopted plan policies in SW-SAZ (SW Concept plan was approved, but not adopted). https://www.eugene-or.gov/ImageRepository/Document?documentID=22904 With Area Planning, the approach is design-driven. Adoption of policies is key difference. Paul Conte interjected that Area Planning is staff driven. Refinement plan is driven by a neighborhood/community planning team. Terri said that the code and statutes define Refinement Plan (1995 statute ORS 197.200). Ann Davies, city attorney, said 197.200 statute, anomalous state law. Refinement plan not necessarily driven by this. Terri said that Area Planning was not necessarily staff driven, with RP neighborhood based. Paul clarified that OR Revised Statute 197.200 t constrain RP. In state legislature, House Bill 30. 1000 Friends of Oregon, realtors, builders Page . 2 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 worked on it. The second version in May 1995 introduced \[section 15 of HB 3065, 197.200 statute\] to increase community participation. \[Addendum: In an August 18 e- relevant to th clarity. Terri agreed. Terri said that refinement plans can set policy without defining code. Example of Dominos Pizza a new use, so had a building permit, but it complied with current standards of code \[allowed to build right by sidewalk, on/near property line\]. u cannot violate comprehensive plan e issued order to stop allowing higher density development than the code allowed but the Metro Plan designation did not. A refinement plan does limit what can be done. Terri said that eventually what gets built is controlled by the code. \[Comment from Paul Conte: This is simply not completely accurate. The law and court decisions are very clear the City cannot allow more intensive development than the comprehensive plan allows, regardless of land use code provisions. Period.\] Terri said that with Area Planning, it never was intended to be at the expense of public engagement. uncil directs us this way, then we are happy to do a refinement plan. Housing Affordability Heather Sielicki What can we do for affordable housing? Terri said that there is now a City Council poll out to present inclusionary housing. Another tool is using a construction excise tax to fund affordable housing. Market rate housing \[price and affordability of market rate\] housing supply and demand, low wages, factors for the cost of development. City uses waivers and tax exemptions, but these only address low income and there are long waiting lists. The https://www.eugene-or.gov/871/HUD-Consolidated-Plan is the page\] has more on affordability. Laura Burke Southeast Neighbors. Talked to developer in a project. He said that there were huge disincentives to build small the charges were the same for 700 square foot house versus 7000 square foot. Are there ways to build smaller homes more affordable? Terri said that this is on the to-do list, will incentivize smaller homes, allowing missing middle and clustered housing. Bonnie Bettman-McCornack said that now we are subsidizing larger houses. \[When on the City Council,\] way o ousing. When we talk affordable, usually most people think low income. Right now we incentivize middle income and in Lane County above middle income. Page . 3 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 Question from audience member: What would you define as small and large homes? Terri said that secondary dwellings have a maximum of 800 square feet. There are no maximum or minimum on other houses. Christine Sundt said that she is concerned that she could be priced out of the area. Maybe being selfish to protect my turf. Terri said that for SW-SAZ, city did do a market analysis. displacement, which was a mistake. Envision Eugene and Density Terri said that they are now doing street fairs on Envision Eugene. Last October, the city council ruled on the livability of R-1 zoning. So now looking at different ways to increase density. \[You can get on Envision Eugene e-mail list.\] Options A require multifamily houses on vacant R-2 land; Option B raise minimum density for R-2\]; and Option C add density along key corridors. Urban Growth Boundary has to have enough land for 20 years. medium and high density multifamily housing (MFH). One way was to develop along key corridors, but we do have different options to get to the 1600 more MFH units needed (out of 16,000 needed). Option A: Get more houses on multifamily lots \[by prohibiting single-family, detached on larger multifamily lots\]. Now allow single family dwellings (SFD) on R-2 and R-3. \[By excluding SFD, it would increase the number of homes here.\] Option B: Raise R-numerical density from 10 to 14 units for the minimum \[medium density Metro\]. Lloyd Helikson from Churchill neighborhood asked about the 1600 homes, how do we get this number? Terri said that we expect 34,000 people influx, then divide the 20,000 new homes needed for these with the housing mix of 45% multifamily and 55% single family homes. Then, studying land, slope, and other constraints, have enough land for single family, but for multifamily have enough except for 1600 units. See the housing needs analysis document (thick document). Christine Sundt would the number change if we counted mixed use residential units? Also, Cathedral Park is now in play (part of Rest Haven Cemetery property. Terri said that is now in the capacity counts. Cutoff date \[for starting 20 year countdown\] is mid-2013. Terri said that there is a new program: growth monitoring program, where city will now monitor with building permits, etc. If Cathedral Park is built with a higher density, then city will adjust number. Kathleen Bosteder from SHiNA, where does lot size come in? If you made lot sizes smaller, you can put more in R-1 areas. Terri said that city makes assumptions of averages for what densities are being built, e.g., certain amount from South University neighborhood. Use the average of 2.4 people per dwelling unit. Bill Aspegren South University Neighborhood said that in SUN, there are 10-12% of housing with students with 3-5 students per house. He asked whether city considered using more than one average (adjust per area, for example for student housing areas). Terri said that the there is a list of potential ways to count \[density?\], and household size is just one way. Vic Hariton from SHiNA said with the proposed change for the bowling alley, the commercial use would ng at mixed use? Terri said, why 1 story, and did we do anything to try to influence a change? Yes the city did try to Page . 4 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 influence. Set of non-conforming units. Buildings with residential above not seeing any built outside of downtown. Goal is to see mixed use with residential along the South Willamette corridor. Lena Houston-Davisson from FAN asked regarding the multifamily homes map, when identifying building but it is identified as medium density. Do the people who own these spots know that? Terri said that the map shows medium density in Metro Plan, either vacant or little development. Could e. th Lynn from 40 & Willamette said she has owned property over 40 years. Multifamily is apartments or renters. Is there a way to build condos, where people can purchase? to control that; the property owner decides. Someone from the audience said that with Cathedral Park, the property owner said that the city made him do it \[to rent vs. own\]. Terri said for Goal 10 our plan is supposed to address housing needs at every level. A lot of people in Eugene are burdened by rent. Laura Wingerd from 28 th Avenue asked whether Terri was going to answer all questions, or should we repeat? \[Terri said there are a lot of questions.\] livable areas more livable? Terri said that SW-SAZ was initiated by the Southtowne Business Association and Friendly Area Neighbors they asked for it. Janet Bevirt asked about Metro Plan, migrating to Comprehensive Plan. Metro is the regional Comprehensive plan. Why change the name Metro Plan to Comprehensive Plan? What will this change mean? There is some reason to change the names with unclear implications. \[Terri said\] in 2007, the state legislature required Eugene/Springfield to have an independent Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Made choice to pull out parts of Metro plan for a Eugene-specific plan, and also pull over the policies that we need. Janet asked so where does the Refinement Plan work. Does it go under the Eugene Comprehensive plan? Paul Conte said articulate which documents \[are included\]. The Comprehensive Plan is the Metro Plan and the Refinement Plans. Terri said the proposed ordinance was sent up to the state in November. Will have an index to show the amendments to the Trans Plan, Metro Plan, etc. List of appendices, employment (jobs), land. Every document will be listed. No effect on the refinement plans. They remain as they are. Bonny Bettman-McCornack asked whether there will be a cross-out version of what is amended. Terri said yes. Bonny said that the current zoning in areas underdeveloped, you say you can fit about 16,000 units in existing zoning. In the single family area, you allow 0 to 14 units density for Single Family zone. um density for Single Family? Out of these 1600 units, how many in SW- upzone \[Whole Foods with residential\]? Terri answered that regarding the minimum density in R-1, the need is in multifamily; we already have Page . 5 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 enough single family. Bonnie said that is silo thinking. In low density areas, we have large square foot houses. Each acre had t are already moderately dense? Eliza Kashinsky said that medium density also has climate goals. All of the vacant lands are on the Bonny said that this is new urbanism. Serve the new areas with transit. What is the reason to put density in established neighborhoods? Why? Just to cash in on lower cost established areas? Someone asked how many new units in SW-SAZ? Terri said that in the capacity analysis, they used the number of 250, and to get this number, it required development incentives. MUPTE requires a refinement plan in place to get additional density along transit corridor. Brian Weaver from West Eugene said when Greg Evans asked question at the City Council, the answer was 50 to 250, so as low as 50. Terri said that the question is what is the real number? Joyce Eaton (Southeast Neighbors & FAN) said that the 250 number was only for the Mixed Use areas. It said nothing about converting R-2 to R-3 and the additional units there. \[ALSO, Joyce reminded Terri after the meeting ended, that the 250 number was based on residential rental rate of $1.33 per square foot and that the one new construction Parvin Place at 24 th Place & Willamette rented for $1.50 per square foot in 2014, so using that rental rate, the Capacity analysis said there would be over 1300 new units again, just in Mixed use areas (and with MUPTE and reduced . although HAVE they taken this point? They keep repeating the 250 number without caveats.\] Deborah Noble (Southeast Neighbors) said that people are going to drive anyway. Also South . It is not like Highway 99. s question (Terri read it): In the City Code Cthe purpose of the R-2 Medium-Density Residential zone is to implement the Metro Plan by providing areas for medium- density residential use and encourage a variety of dwelling types." It seems to me that R-2 is ideal for implementing the "missing middle" of housing that is being talked about so much lately, and providing the variety of housing types that you mentioned in one of FAN's SW-SAZ committee meetings. However, every single one of the lots in SW-SAZ that was zoned R-2 in City of Eugene zoning (or zoned Medium density in Metro Plan), was rezoned to Apartment/Condo (or multi-use) \[which is high density\]. Why did the planning staff deem this nece Terri answered that the intent was to have apartment/condo as a transition zone from commercial, then apartment/condo, then lower level density. be done by taking over existing R-s Mixed Use Development Committee? There were 18 recommendations. Why were these ignored? Terri said that there is a communication challenge. They were not intentionally ignored. It would have helped to have a member of this committee. Paul asked whether the city would engage in the future. Terri said it would be good to do. Page . 6 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 Lloyd Helikson is on the MUPTE advisory committee. To be eligible for MUPTE, specifically provide a refinement plan. Bonnie asked whether the refinement plan would include implementing zones. has MUPTE program guide. Bonny asked whether regarding MUPTE if anyone has done a study on the amount of taxes forgiven. Capstone was $10 million over 10 years. If the community is interested in a $10 million investment, is this the best use of the funds? Laurel from Southeast Neighbors said her comment is from a developer, on zoning issues with the Eugene single family lot be that size? This would provide pocket neighborhoods. It speaks more to infill. Terri said that the current minimum for R-1 in Eugene is 4500 square feet, and R-2 2500 square feet. This is certainly something that can be done. Also, change the maximum lot size. Lisa Arkin from FAN said that MUPTE proposed a certain percentage of units appropriate for workforce housing. Developers were against this. But now state law allows inclusionary zoning. Is the city of Eugene proposing this? How does this fit in with Envision Eugene? Terri said yes, that the city is doing planning and community housing plans. Contact Stephanie Jennings for more information. Scheduled to talk on inclusionary zoning with City Council. George Brown said that the current MUPTE is still no good. Previously, there was no public benefit. 100% of median income \[where your rental housing is no more than 30% of your income\]. Eugene defines it at 100% of median income. Also, if a deng, they \[ http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/03/affordablehousingmandateswi.html gives an explanation of Oregon Senate Bill 1533 on inclusionary zoning (in residential buildings with more than 20 units, require at least 20% of units to be for workfor fund for affordable housing.\] le to the current MUPTE areas, if MUPTE were expanded.\] Gerry Meenaghan (Southeast Neighbors) said he walked here. Walked past Amazon Cottages, which are single family homes on small lots. Also recently did running by Mt. Baldy, where there are 7000 square foot houses. It is ironic that my house at $186,000 with 1000 square feet \[two houses from 29 th Avenue\] would be able to have apartments right next to square foot houses are allowed. Janet said that in regard to MUPTE, my property taxes go up 3% a year. With MUPTE, there are no taxes for 10 years. When I asked about the Olive Loft investor. So how do we know whether city staff, planners, commissioners, councilors, 1000 Friends of Oregon, or other advocates are investors? Public funds are being used \[so we should know\]. Page . 7 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 Bonnie said that 34,000 new residents, why do we have to have subsidized housing? Why do we have to subsidize? There is a demand there. MUPTE housing has a demand for all services that needs to be Terri said that 34,000 is the number adopted by the City Council, and we are required to plan for it. a lot of economic tools. MUPTE is one of the tools. Apartment/condo expectations for development were low. Lloyd Helikson, Churchill Area Neighbors, said that the 20-year timeframe for Envision Eugene started July 1, 2012, not 2013, and went to June 30, 2032. Now we have had a substantial amount of development since then, so why are we doing MUPTE for having more? He said he had done a study of development which had been ignored by the City. Terri acknowledged that the timeframe was accurate, and said the study had not been ignored. David Monk, Southeast Neighbors, sat in on MUPTE discussions. k at outcomes. The developer got MUPTE for housing at 18 th and Pearl. The investors sold and doubled their investment in 2 years. People are coming here. Why do we need MUPTE? Terri said that she will pass this question on to staff. Terri said that for the street capacity question, how many more housing units before streets are considered full at D and E level of service for a street. Chris Henry would be able to give more details. Used the TransPlan model for future housing projection. How long waiting in a car? City is doing test restriping of Willamette Street. There are new cameras at Woodfield Station. Used the citywide Trans Plan (tsp.org). Planning commission hearing, results in the fall. th Janet said that city is not monitoring West 29 Avenue. There is way more traffic \[after the restriping\], th South Willamette St and 29 Avenue sidewalks now that there are bike paths and we want walkability on our sidewalks. Downtown has limitations \[no bikes/skateboards on sidewalks\]. With Vision Zero \[no pedestrian or bicycle deaths\], city needs to require bicycle helmets. Opportunity Siting, Willard School site. This property is owned by 4-J. Could use for low density development (this way in Metro Plan). Charnelton Street can't be developed to go through to W 29th Ave, (the Lincoln St & Woodfield Station traffic lights already have backed up traffic problems) and it can't be developed to go through to W 27th Ave, (it's too steep and narrow). Christine said that with current and future influx of people, they come with kids, so we should save schools. Paul Conte said that in Envision Eugene, Opportunity Siting was a key strategy. But yet nothing was done; instead it was hijacked to Area Planning. Opportunity Siting is site specific, and community supported. Terri said this is noted, and it is on the work plan. Envision Eugene soaked up a lot of staff time. \[Someone said\] With Opportunity Siting, neighborhoods work with the city for higher density. Paul said that the developer gets more flexibility and greater density as a result of a proposal that the neighborhood community supports through a discretionary process. -line at: https://trusttheneighbors.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/guidetoopportunitysitingv2draft.pdf .\] Page . 8 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 The around 8:55 PM. CS thanked Terri Harding and all who attended and participated. She reminded the audience to continue submitting questions and comments as well as rebuttals through the SWN website (http://swneugene.org/). All documentation from this event will be delivered to the City during the upcoming Mayors Forum on September 19. Page . 9 of 9 SWN Conversation About Neighbhorhoods, 8/16/2016 2016 16, August Neighborhoods" About "Conversation FOR NEIGHBORS WILLAMETTE SOUTH BY COLLECTED COMMENTS Harding Terri & QUESTIONS to delivered TheCityCouncilseemspoorlyinformedabouttheplansotheyshouldpostponethe Maypostcard rezoningplanuntiltheycanbothunderstandtheplanthroughindepthconversations mailing withthecityplannersandalotifinteractionandfeedbackfromtheresidentswhowill beaffected;includingnoonlythosewhodoliveintheaffectedareasbutalsothose whoareadjacenttoitandthosefurtheroutwhowillbeaffectedbythemassive increaseintrafficinthe3corridorsthatserveallofSouthEugene. Thesouthtownshopsandadjacentareasareadestinationforthesouthsideofspring2015 Eugene.Increaseddensitymayimprovetrafficflowwhenmorepeoplecanwalkto shopsandinteractwiththeirneighbors.Itistruethatsomegardenpatcheswilllose sunlight. Additionalsignedpetitionsfollow.ThepetitioncampaignbeganonOctober2,2015,and endedonApril4,2016.Bytheendofthecampaign,morethan600signatureswere collectedthroughtheonlineformandbyvolunteerswhocanvassedtheSouthWillamette neighborhoods. Page 1 of 30 Page 2 of 30 Page 3 of 30 Page 4 of 30 Page 5 of 30 Page 6 of 30 Page 7 of 30 Page 8 of 30 Page 9 of 30 Page 10 of 30 Page 11 of 30 Page 12 of 30 Page 13 of 30 Page 14 of 30 Page 15 of 30 Page 16 of 30 Page 17 of 30 Page 18 of 30 Page 19 of 30 Page 20 of 30 Page 21 of 30 Page 22 of 30 Page 23 of 30 Page 24 of 30 Page 25 of 30 Page 26 of 30 Page 27 of 30 Page 28 of 30 Page 29 of 30 Page 30 of 30 SOUTH WILLAMETTE NEIGHBORS {ĻƦƷĻƒĬĻƩ ЋЉͲ ЋЉЊЏ ƚ ğƌƌ źƓƷĻƩĻƭƷĻķ ƦğƩƷźĻƭʹ tƌĻğƭĻ ŅźƓķ ğƷƷğĭŷĻķ ğķķźƷźƚƓğƌ ƭźŭƓğƷǒƩĻƭ ƚƓ ƷŷĻ {‘b tĻƷźƷźƚƓ ƷŷğƷ ǞĻƩĻ ƓƚƷ źƓĭƌǒķĻķ ǞźƷŷ ƚǒƩ źƓźƷźğƌ ƦğĭƉĻƷ ƭǒĬƒźƭƭźƚƓͲ ƭĻƓƷ ĬǤ Ļƒğźƌ ƚƓ {ĻƦƷĻƒĬĻƩ ЋͲ ЋЉЊЏ͵ ‘Ļ ğƦƚƌƚŭźǩĻ ŅƚƩ Ʒŷźƭ ƚǝĻƩƭźŭŷƷ ğƓķ ŷƚƦĻ ƷŷğƷ Ǥƚǒ Ǟźƌƌ ğķķ ƷŷĻƭĻ ƦğŭĻƭ Ʒƚ ƚǒƩ ĭƚƌƌĻĭƷźǝĻ ƦǒĬƌźĭ ƷĻƭƷźƒƚƓǤ ƩĻŭğƩķźƓŭ {ƚǒƷŷ ‘źƌƌğƒĻƷƷĻ͵ ŷğƓƉ Ǥƚǒ͵ JoyceEaton JoyceEaton From AnnaKate Malliris 09/16/2016 Towhoever is on the other end of this and particularly Mayor Piercy: I know that you have been told before and I am sure you will be told again on Sept. 19th (although only in3 minute increments) that this plan makes no sense. I have told the council(wo)men before the reasonsthat this plan is ridiculous but now I want to share the actionsthat arealreadyhappening as a result ofyour ongoing push to change the character of this area. I have sold one andam preparing to sell another house in this zoning district. I may not beable to get you all to see that the plan is ridiculous (which one of you has the crystal ball that can see out past the 20yearsworthofhousingthatEugenehasalready provided), destructive tothearea(theSouth Willamette Neighbors have shared with you the outcomes of this kind of ridiculous development plan in other places around the country; primarily the creationof slums as investors buy up and run decaying rentals until they acquire enough property to build large developments), and leads to long time residents fleeing furtherout from these central neighborhoods. And that brings meto me. I haveno interest in riding your ridiculous roller coasterthat is guaranteed to crash at the end. I will not have the $650,000 worth of real property that I own outright devalued so you can play Legos with my neighborhood. I will not wait until my next door neighbor is a revolving door of tenants lacking any connection or commitmenttothe neighborhoodoreven their property while someone rakes in rent payments while watchingtheproperty deteriorate and waiting for the big payday when they can buy up the adjoining property for pennies on the dollar from hardworking people like me whojustwant out and any cost. I will not livenextdoor to a 7 story, 5 story or even 3 story apartment building. And, as I move further out to find an intact neighborhood, I will drive farther to get to work and shop which has the opposite affect on the environment than what you want. But at least for now, you can't stop me. After living ontheedge ofdowntownfor 25 yearsandwatching it become overrun by homeless people going through my garbage cans, people walking through my yard as if it were a thoroughfare, and people stealing from my back yard, the thing thathas made memove is you. I don't know where you live but I was the person willing to live inan area close enough in to have all of the challenges because I wanted to be able to walk to the grocery store, be part of a stable neighborhood, and take advantage of being close to downtown; even whendowntown was a ghost town. But now you want to turn my neighborhood into a revolving door of apartment tenants who will literally tower over me so that some developers will make a lot of money and the "newbies" to Eugene will be able to live on prime real estate. You alreadystarted to change things when, in your infinite wisdom, you re-stripped the streets so that traffic is often backed up from 18th Street to 30th Avenue. I, fortunately, do not have to put up with it so I am out and the rentals are already moving in. You will, by the time you run your agenda, have turned one of the oldest andmoststable neighborhoodsin Eugene into a slum and driven me and many of my neighbors out to thesuburbs. Well done. So I won't be there Mondaynight andyouwon't really care what anyone says(it'sjustall process to you) and theplan willrun down the rails.It's a pilot so if it fails, you had a learning experience so no worries. But whether is "succeeds" or fails, the neighborhood will be destroyed and all of it's residents will be out in the suburbs with me (and I'm guessing you). Just a thought to ponder: Is it any surprise that Donald Trump has become this year's versionof the angry (wo)man's candidate? You andyour ridiculous, arrogant plansarethe fuel for thiskindofnasty rebellion. I won't jointhat crusade but I also won't sit around while you slowly tearapart whatwas my utopia. AnnaKate Malliris From WendyDudelheim 09/18/2016 Dear City Council and Mayor Kitty Piercy: Please comment on thepotentiality of any upcoming, commercial andresidential newzoning changes, beyond, 30 East 33rd Avenue, ( SouthEugene - Post Office). I have unfavorableconcernsof futuredevelopmentswhich could create and force additional lanes beyond the intersection of 29th and Willamette. I hope you will address this question, tomorrow evening on September 19th. Best Regards, WendyDudelheim 3385 Storey Blvd. Eugene, OR 97405 From Jean Diamond and Michael Karasek 09/18/2016 We are unable to attend themeeting at South Eugene today and want to giveourinput as residents for almost 40 years inthe College Hill neighborhood which is directly affected by the South Willamette Zone.We are pleased that theCity is taking a step back and listeningtothecommunity. Ourpriorities: 1.We support the livability and sustainability of existing neighborhoods. Currently College Hill is a "walkable", low traffic area. We would like to keep it that way. 2.We believe that high densityhousing leads to destabilizing existing neighborhoods. We feel that existing, functioning neighborhoods should not be dramatically altered in pursuitof increased density. 3.With an increase in thenumber ofdwellings there isalso increased traffic on the neighboring streets. 4.The College Hill neighbors should be consulted and informed of any potential changes in zoning. 5.A refinement planis essential if any changes are planned for this area. Thankyoufor your interest in hearing from the neighbors. Jean Diamond and Michael Karasek From Jeff Cole 09/19/2016 Dear City ofEugene: I live in Portland yetI’mwritingto youon Envision Eugene & South Willamette because I am fond of your city – in fact, I am seriously contemplating a move to Eugene. Portland is well knownforits planning prowess - much of it is well deserved. Yet there are some lessons to be learned that I think areworthconsidering going forwardin Eugene. InPortland, wearelaudedin the press andwe have indeed become a tourist destination. We have grown rapidly, especially in the recent post-recession period. Despite this abundanceof apparent prosperity ourcityfacesmultiple systemic challenges: Roads: Portland has a billiondollar backlogof unmetroad maintenance needs.Ourstreets areliterally falling apart, and delayed maintenance means the cost of future repairs is increasing exponentially. Voters recently approved a local gas tax - yet it’s just a small bandaid on the larger problem - decades of underfunded road maintenance now must be reversed. Traffic and parking: it’s bad and getting worse. And Portland’s decision to allow mixed-use buildingswith noparking on transit corridors running through century old neighborhoodshas cast a plague of parking headaches. Police: While our population has increased our police force has shrunk - and due to attrition the problem will get worse before it gets better. Two blocks from me a pedestrian - a teenage girl legally attempting to cross the street - was killed by a reckless motorist driving 50-60mph in a 30mph zone. Yet Portland’s traffic enforcement capabilitieshavebecome skeletal. Portland’s police force responds by shifting a shrinking number of officers from one crisis area to the next. Parks: Portlandvoters have repeatedly passed and renewed parks bond measures. System Development Charges are levied on each unit of new construction. Yet, in Portland’s rapidly growing close-in neighborhoods nonewparkresourceshave been dedicated and a long promised community center remains unbuilt.My ownneighborhood officially remains “park deficient.” Two decades ago our nearest park had two full time maintenance staff - now there is only one half time position. Legions of volunteers try to make up this gapyet at some point there is a limit to howmuchcan be expected of them. Our City’s Character: once Portland focused newdevelopment into truly distressed areas where previous economic activity was in decline. Oldwarehouses and railroadyards were converted into our Pearl district. In South Waterfront a similarstory istold.Nowdevelopment isoverwhelming perfectly goodstreetcar era neighborhoods thatare already walkable with a fullrangeof services. Irreplaceable vintage urban fabricisbeingdemolished in favor of boxy mixed use buildings with tiny units and deficient ground floor commercial space. * * * * * Onewould think Portland’s eraof prosperity meant that more resources would beavailable to makeour city more live-able - yetwearecomingup short on many accounts. any growth Eugene envisions must ¨­clud¤ lock-tight And so the basicpoint I wish to share is this: commitmen³² to include the amenities and ¨­frastructur¤ that mitigates new impacts and at the very least preserves the ² ¬¤ level of livability that existed beforeIn short, without   guaranteed . resource stream to pay for the publi¢ improvemen³² that  ccompany private £evelopmen³ the citizens of Eugene will be shortchanged. If you have neighborhoodsandbusiness districtsthat areworking and live-able, tread very carefully in terms of newvisions. Bethankful for the successandnurtureit gently. Ratherthan rely on widespread (andgenerally irreversible) up-zoningandmassive area overlays - apply a precision focus where new development can be surgically introduced to enhance rather than overwhelm existing urban fabric. Thereare many euphemisms for new concepts in urban planning - “smart growth”and “missing middle” - yet I believe that core ideas embodied in Portland’s 1980 Comprehensive Plan and the concept of “sense of place” still represent a highlyvalid, holistic approach to accommodating growth that doesn’t compromiselivability. Thank you, Jeff Cole 4343 SEMadison St. Portland, OR 97215 503.927.7748 From The Southeast Neighbors Board of Directors 09/19/2016 Dear Mayor Piercy, City Council and staff, Thankyoufor the opportunity to comment on the engagement processesrelated to South Willamette planning. We appreciate your efforts to restart this communitydiscussion and hope that the City's new approach will engage area neighbors in helping create a widely supported plan. The Southeast Neighbors Board ofDirectorssubmitsthese commentsfor thepublic recordaselected representativesofthe neighborhood associationwithout intending to represent theopinionsof the larger neighborhood. We believe that the Envision Eugene process has,in general, successfully identified community support for affordable housing, neighborhood livability, viable transportation options, and protection of our naturalresources. However,wethinktheplanningprocessinregardstotheSouthWillametteArea Rezone failed from the beginning to accommodate the concerns of those area residents who would be mostimpacted by thechangesproposed. Understanding andappreciatingcitizens' concerns is essential todeveloping trust and creating successful outcomes. Proposing to change the zoning and land use regulations as was done with SW- SAZcreatedunnecessary conflict with area neighbors. Ifimplemented asproposed therezoning would haveundoubtedly displacedmany low and middle income residents and led to the destruction of most of the affordable homes in the area. This failureis notuniqueto Eugene nor to land useplanning. As many governing jurisdictions and agenciesarediscovering broad publicsupportis best achieved by reaching out first to the most affected residents andensuring thattheyhave sufficient capacityamongthemselves to fully participate in the process. Meaningfuland effective public participation is oftensuccessful when the organization in charge commits to integrating thisapproach intoits stafftraining,program priorities, and efforts to implement the policies of their decision making bodies. We donotbelieve that a city-wideplanningprocess is sufficient todevelop proposals for specific areas of our community.Each transportation corridor has its own unique characteristics and area residents with their own thoughts about how to best accommodate growth. The Envision Eugene process has identified key social values pertinent to planning for a growing population. It's essentialthat wenowfocus our planning for specific areas with the understanding that the process should be driven by area residents. We believe a refinement plan process is bestsuitedto fulfillthis goal. Bysupportingthe efforts of South Willamette residents to fully engage their neighborsin developing a draftrefinement plan the City can begin to mend the hurt and distrust created with SW-SAZ. Our recommendation is that theCity initiate a refinement planning process forSouth Willamette assoon asis practical. We supported such a recommendation earlierinthe year when we joined with the three other southEugene neighborhoods inaskingforsuch a process Thankyou for your considerationof our comments, Southeast NeighborsBoardof Director From Greg Giesy 09/19/2016 Dear Mayor and City Council, The South Willamette issue is so far off the tracks that I don’t know if wecan ever repair the alienation it has caused and I believethat we are still headingin thewrong direction.The meeting today was not wanted by most of the people involved in thisissue. Thefocus of the meeting that everyone in Eugene canstate what the residents in the South Willamette area should wantonly causes more feeling that those residentshavelittle choicebutto except theirfate withtheirfeelings mattering less thanpeople whowon’tneedtolivewiththe outcome. I have been on the Friendly Area Neighbors (FAN) Board for eighteen years and during that time we asked repeatedly for a refinement plan. When I first started on the FAN Board long time members have told me that the boardhadtriedfor 20 years before I joined toget a refinement plan for the neighborhood. The South Willamette Special Area Zone started with us being refused a refinement plan but the city was willing todo something that would cost less. Nowthat six years have been wasted and the price of the SpecialAreaZone, that has been cancelled, isseveraltimes what a refinement plan would havecost. Maybe we shouldrethink the city’sstance onnot doing refinement plans. Over the last year there have been many debates over the pros and cons of refinement plans. The one thing it has over how the special area zone washandled is thatit starts with a neighborhood planning committeehelpedbycitystafftalkingto residentsaboutwhat the area shouldlook like and them actuallywalking the neighborhood. The special area zone hadmeeting with anyone that wanted to attend writing ideas onmapsandcity staff deciding what they wanted to promote from the statements on the maps.It also expandedoutof FANtotwo neighborhoods thathadlittle idea that the special area zone washappening and then went to code before walking the area to see if whatwas on the maps made any sense. Refinement plans lookat traffic, parking, solaraccess, gentrification, and livability in generalwhichwas notadequately done for the special area zone. I will finishwith going beyond weighing the benefits and short comings of refinement plans versus special areazones to saythe city’s biggest problem with many of thethingsit does is thelack of communication funding to get information out to its citizens. Going back to the drawing board to rehashthings costmany times what it would costtomake people aware ofwhat was happening. Sincerely, GregGiesy Friendly Area NeighborsBoardMember th 42 W. 19Avenue 541.687.1858 From Wayne Gaddy 09/19/2016 I want expressmy support forthe motion sponsored by MikeClark some months ago that was initially passed bythe council. I haven't seen the Brown-Clark proposal referred to at tonight'spublic forumat South Eugene High but I gather it's along those lines. I urge you to move carefully on rezoning in the Southeastern area oftown. This is already a densely populated area of many modest homes owned by people of modest incomes. A number of us are senior citizens who have limited physical and financial resources to move if they find a multi-story apartment building built right up to their property line. For someone likemewhohas spent 29years remodeling inside and building an attractive yard and garden outside thatradical a change would be intolerable. If youwant to rezone properties that are being used asrentals that's one thing. No homeowner who bought a residence to live in and does live with the expectation that similar homes would be on either side should have kind of a change imposed adjoining property without his /her consent orcompensation. MUPTE should not be extended further south or anywhere else. If there really is a need foran increase in apartment buildings they willbe built It's called thefree market.Rather than destroy thecharacterof neighborhoods, I would rather see the Urban GrowthBoundary expanded toaccommodate a rapid population growth thanto see wide swaths of our city turned into a sea of condos and tenements like What's happening in central Seattle. This is an area that is carrying more traffic than its streets can handle. Now that school is back in session, afternoon traffic on Willamette is considerably worse and I expect it to get worse when the university opens for fall term. The Hub is an eyesore that you would have expected to see in East Berlinbutatleastit'son a transportationcorridor. Yourplanningdepartmentapproved a zoning changeacrossthestreetonthreeadjoininglots thathad single houses, lawns, and the ability to see a skyline above them. The planner incharge toldme there wouldbe four discrete duplexes wherethere were three houses, therewasnoway an apartment building could be built and it would be no taller than the 2 story houses in the immediate area. All three of those promises were wrong. The owner bragged to his workers that he had already flipped thebuildingto a California corporation for a profit of $300,000. One subcontractor told me thebuildingwas so cheaply built itwould start falling apart within ten years as he thinks Capstone will (Yes, he did work on that project) I feel like a fool for trustingyour planning department whenover the years I'd been warned by people not to trust city staff. I'll never make that mistake again. The cityneedsto set up a structure whereby neighborhood people are brought in from the beginning to develop changes in zoning and liveability. The planning departmentshouldnotbeabletogetyoutoimposeradicalchangeswhen there is clearly strong opposition to those who will suffer from the changes. Frankly, I think the city government is more responsive to the affluent and the developers.who see modest neighborhoods as easy pickings. It also looks like you would never do this to the most expensive neighborhoods that live on big spreads and enjoy views of empty land in the distance and little traffic or noise in their areas. Our area includes decades long residents who have always provided the strongest yes votes when the city has needed money from voters I think attention should be paid to thoseof us who have contributed to ourcity for decades as opposed to focusing so intently on those who may come here in the future and may not set roots here. Those whocomehere shoulddo some planning as I did 41 years ago to make sure they aregoingto a place where they can find affordable housing. All neighborhoods should share equally the burdensthat future growth may bring. Wayne Gaddy From Richard Sundt 09/19/2016 ForumonSouth Willamette, South EugeneHig§ School 19 September 2016 PresentationbyRichardA.Sundt, Eugene, Ward 2 The South Willamette Special Area Zone proposedin 2015 elicitedmany objections fromresidents living in this part of Eugene, including myself. However, I firmly believe that one aspect of this plan was admirable anddeserves, with appropriate modifications, to beused as a model inother partsof the city. I amreferring to that aspect of the SAZ plan that promotes densification by erecting multi-storied mixed- used structureson either side of the South Willamette corridor.It’s about time that Eugene think of densifyingcommercialareas inthisandotherways.This willhelpto contain our unending commercial sprawl. And in the process, it should also relieve residents from having to carry all the burdens of achievingdensity on theirshoulders. Thus, I urge the Councilto adopt the Clark and Brown initiative to trim the SW-SAZ to what were once th th itsoriginal boundaries, namelyfrom24to 29Avenues, and to concentrate development of new multi- purpose buildings on either side of this five-blockarea of South Willamette. Adoptionofsuch a scheme should include a refinement plan, that—a among other things—will ensure preservation of the natural beauty offered to this part of the city by the presence of SpencerButte andthe surrounding hills. From Tom Happy 09/19/2016 All, Firstand foremost,listen to the people whoare directly impacted by zoning changes. The resultsof the Chambers Node Revisitedprocess of a dozen years ago, as well as the more recent special area zone The zoning changes process in Jefferson Westside, are laudable examples of effective citizen engagement. in these examplesmeetthe state ¬ ­£at¤£ ta±¦¤³² fordensity, ¢omply with city code for the same, and have meaningful protections to preserve the livabilit¸ of ³§¤ neighborhoods ¨­volved. The trouble starts whenchanges are madethat suddenly and significantly alterthe character of a home, a block or a neighborhood. The simplest way to think about it is to ask yourself "what would I be happy to live with in the way of changes next to my home?" It causes problems when the notion of infill is something "out there." Your "out there" isalways somebodyelse's home. Ponder that one,and I mean really let it sink in. Myfamily has been victimized by poor planning more than once. Indealing with thisreality, I have met or talked with multiple City of Eugene Planning Division staff. Every single one of them has been friendly, polite, and generally helpful. Yet, I have somewhere south of "very little trust" for the Planning Division as a whole. This is due solely to my experience on the ground. Businesses, non-profit organizations, governmental entitiesall want predictability in their dealings. Certainty is even better. Tools like MUPTE are ways of creating some certaintyfor developers. What about homeowners, I ask? Don't you think that most folks who own a home want the same thing? There is a huge disconnect between the City's aspirational goals for infill development and theactual results-to- date. The developers are in the driver's seat, and their interests are not the same as the City's, not to mention the neighboring home owners'. It is no surprise that thereal world product of thissystem is not working for the impacted residents. We already have a largeinventoryof "reasonably affordable" housing. When established, older homes arebulldozed to build new,denser housing, affordability goes out the window. The ONLY affordable housing being built new is that which is subsidized, and in many cases this will not be the case forever (that is,eventuallymuch of this will become market-rate housing). When neighborhoods are destabilized, quality oflife diminishesfor those unfortunate enough to live there. Those who can do so willeventually move, usuallyto areas closer to the urban fringe and away from thecore. This iscounter to the aims of densifying the city core and minimizing sprawl. Poorly planned and placedinfill leads to the very problem (sprawl, due toflightfrom established core neighborhoods) that it is trying to address. And even if the net result ofbad infill ismoredensity,thinkaboutwhat happensto the heart, the character, the soul of a neighborhood when the long-term, truly investedresidents (from families, to retirees, to elderly who've spent their entire lives in the same house) move away en masse. How, in any way,shape orform,could this be conceived of as a good thing, or a desiredoutcome? Infill needsto happen incrementally,respectfully, and thoughtfully in established neighborhoodsin order to succeed onall levels. Targetedhigh-densityhousing, where appropriate,canallowforlarge increases in housing stock.Opportunitysiting and transit corridors are prime places for this. There should be a gradual transition from the above into the neighborhood core, not wholesale change. Yes, we needmore multi-family housing in its various forms (apartments, townhouses, row houses, duplexes, cottage clusters, etc.). So let's build them right, place them appropriately, and preserve what we have. A neighbor placing a backyard cottage (or two), or even a well-placed and well-designed full-size houseadjacent tomybackyard, is a much different proposition than a developer (likely a non-neighbor, and therefore without a vested interest in the well-being of existing residents)building a six-unit apartment building in the same neighboring yardwith a 30-footlooming wall 5-feet from my south property line. Think about that for a minute or two! Don'tthink it happens? I have faced this reality in twodifferentneighborhoods! Onefinal thought is that the City should be densifying uniformly throughout the urban area. Often times the areas being targeted for infill are already the densest parts of town. Sure,itmakes sense to have a more dense urban core, and development on transit corridors is efficient and smart. But we all need to share in the pains of growing over the coming years. So let's share the load, and make sure that the "load" is done intelligently, sensitively, and in ways that we can be proud of in the years to come. Build it well, build it in the right place, and create truly inspiring and attractive places to live while making our existing neighborhoods betterthan they are now. It canbedone,it is not pie-in-the- sky to believe so. We know what doesn't work. We can and must do better. Thank you for the opportunityto comment. I hopeyou take my words to heart. All the best, Tom Happy Eugene From Thomas Price 09/19/2016 CityLeadership, What I heard was a quieter energy that was not in favor of the Brown/Clark Initiative but would like communityinvolvement as we move forward to refine the planning process, so it embodies the energy of Envision Eugene in a way that trustis co-created with the outcome. As oneof your Sustainability Commissioners, my independent voice has always spoken out for a more balanced system wherethe homeowner and renterhas as much say in the process as the developer and bigbusiness. To be sustainable, weneed to achieve a synergistic balance between people and profit. While our social economic system embodies ownershipoflandresources, ifthere's ever a place to create more social equity, that place is our community equity of land use planning. The city as a whole is a shared resource forallits citizens.We who liveand work in its boundaries day in and day out share in its resources either equally and justly, or not. While capitalism and social equity do not seem to fit in the same container, I believe it is the responsibility of our city leadership to worktoward balancing social equity with a capitalist driven economy. This is how we create trust. Please don't let the vocalminority drown out the quieter Common Good Majority. ThomasPrice TitanToastmaster Eugene,SustainabilityCommissioner EugeneBranch Collaborative Of the: International Living Future Institute, Cascadia Green Building Council, LivingCommunity&LivingBuilding Challenge. Working with you, I Connect & Protect! @ThomastheBrave @TBrave on Twitter. 541-554-2581/877-278-3083 Safety, Health, & Environmental Works, World Wide PacInfo - SimplifiedComputing & Tom's MobileMarketing "You don't choose your future, your habits do." ~ Paul E. Tsika C“” SWS OMMENTS REGARDING NEXT STEPFOR PLANNING IN THE AREA OF OUTH ILLAMETTE TREET Paul Conte Submitted September 20, 2016 By the numbers An overwhelming proportion of community members support a refinement plan process, with the initial step being led by a Planning Team comprised of members of the affected area, following direction by City Council to produce a draft proposal for a new refinement plan. At the September 19, 2016 public forum there were 39 individuals who presented oral testimony. Twenty-five individuals explicitly stated support for a refinement plan (or have stated their support in the past, e.g., Christine Sundt). Only five individuals spoke in support of an alternative, city-wide committee as the next step. (See below) More compelling is the petition in support of a refinement plan signed by 600 individuals. In addition, the board of all four of the affected neighborhood organizations voted to support the letter from the Council of South Eugene Neighborhoods, which supported a refinement plan. There is simply no justification for acting as if this is a “split” community. There is a miniscule group of individuals, most who don’t live in the area, that are trying to block a community-driven first step at a refinement plan. Refinement plan facts – the accurate ones For as long as Donald Trump has been claiming that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States, City Planning Division staff have been presenting the City Council and public with similarly untrue claims about refinement plans. Recently, Terri Harding finally agreed that the following are the true facts about the type of refinement plan that would be adopted for the South Willamette Street area: 1.Regarding ORS 197.200. A “refinement plan” under ORS 197.200 is a particular form of “refinementplan,” and the Metro Plan establishes a different form of refinement plan, which does not need to meet the requirements of ORS 197.200 and does not establish mandatory “expedited land division” processes. From a practical standpoint, ORS 197.200 isn’t particularly relevant to the current discussion. 2.Requirements for land use code implementing a refinement plan. There is no requirement that a Metro Plan refinement plan include land use code to implement plan policies. However, ORS requires that a comprehensive plan policy must be incorporated into land use code to be used as an approval criteria. This is mere “housekeeping” that can be satisfied with simple “copy-and- paste” into Chapter 9 Land Use Code as part of the ordinance adopting a refinement plan. Therefore, this ORS requirement isn’t a burden or hurdle for adopting prescriptive refinement plan policies. It’s notclear whether the current land use code’s numerous instances of “inclusion by reference” to plan policies is adequate. However, since it’s no problem going forward to – a) write (some) refinement plan policies as prescriptive and (in in the case of housing-related policies) in clear- and-objective terms; and b) copy-and-paste into Chapter 9 – this aspect also isn’t an issue or hurdle for adopting new refinement plan policies. 3.Refinement plan policies take priority over zoning. In a related subject, it’s clear from the DLCD enforcement order on the City that the City cannot allow development that is more intensive than the comprehensive plan allows, regardless of zoning criteria. Going forward this issue can easily be avoided altogether simply by incorporating new plan policies into Chapter 9. 4.Comprehensive Plan. For clarification, the “Metro Plan” is not the “comprehensive plan.” The comprehensive plan comprises a set of documents, including the Metro Plan, refinement plans and others. 5.Plan policy hierarchy. Refinement plans are not “under the Metro Plan,” and refinement plan policies are comprehensive plan policies at the same legal level as policies in the Metro Plan document itself. Refinement plan policies may be narrower and/or more detailed, but they are not “subordinate.” In theory, no refinement plan policy should conflict with any Metro Plan policy; thus, the language that “in case of a conflict, the Metro Plan prevails” is simply to establish how to deal with unintentional conflicts. That language does not in any substantive way subordinate refinement plan policies. 6.MUPTE. The MUPTE ordinance requires a “Metro Plan” refinement plan for an area to be “activated” for future MUPTE applications. The MUPTE ordinance does not require land use code (other than incorporating policies into Chapter 9) before activating a new MUPTE area. 7.Types of refinement plans. The form of “Metro Plan” refinement plan that would cover areas in multiple neighborhoods is called a “special area plan” or “special area refinement plan,” and the language should be used precisely. It’s unfortunate that staff is using “area plan” for something that is not a special area plan because this has been very confusing to citizens, as well as City Councilors. In any case, staff documents should make every effort to avoid such confusion, preferably by using another term. Similarly, “neighborhood plan” or “neighborhood refinement plan” should be used only to refer to the respective type of “Metro Plan” refinement plan. It’s unclear whether a “neighborhood plan” could be limited to an area that is wholly within one neighborhood organization’s boundaries, but is not the entire neighborhood. It would avoid any confusion to use “special area plan” for this geographic scope. In sum, none of the purported problems that staff claimed arose from a refinement plan process exist. As history has proven, a community-driven refinement plan process can be successfully conducted for far less money and much quicker than the experience with a staff-driven “area planning” process. The essential differences between a community-driven refinement plan process and a staff-driven “area planning” process The first step in a refinement plan process is directed by a community-based Planning Team, with staff and/or consultants providing a support role. Area planning is directed by staff. The refinement plan process is “bottom-up” and generates a draft proposal for a refinement plan based on the knowledge and active engagement of people who live and work in the affected community. Fellow citizens on the Planning Team gather, validate and synthesize citizen input. Area planning is “top- down” with staff establishing the framework through which input from citizens is filtered, interpreted and fit into the framework by staff decisions. The following table summarizes differences between a refinement plan and area plan. RefinementPlanAreaPlan Legally bindingprocess YesNo Distinct two-step process YesNo Whodrivesthebus? Step 1: Members of plan area Planning staff community Step 2: Planning staff Fullreview and formal Yes No recommendations by neighborhoodorganizations Fullreview and formal Yes Maybe recommendations by Planning Commission Adoption by City Council YesNo A common misconception about the role of a Planning Team A Planning Team is not a group of individuals “representing” the interests of different constituencies and “negotiating” an agreement on proposed policies. The Planning Team’s primary responsibilities include directing a community engagement process that produces a document that reflects the community’s shared goals, objectives and proposed policies. This includes: Ensuring broad and effective public outreach, including providing the kind of information that neighborhood members need to make informed recommendations and decisions. Ensuring substantial and effective public engagement, including thorough discussions and deliberations on proposed goals, objectives and policies for the refinement plan. Creating a proposed “Draft Refinement Plan” for consideration throughthe subsequent phases of the public process. An essential aspect of the refinement plan process is that citizens with no background in public policy and planning, nevertheless are most knowledgeable about the neighborhoods in which they live and run local businesses. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals recognize this principle and call for planning staff to assist so that NRPs can be successfully crafted and understood by ordinary citizens. The alternatives proposed for “next steps.” The only alternative that’s been proposed is from a small group of individuals who call themselves “WE CAN.” The proposal is essentially a “top-down” approach with a committee representing a plethora of interests city-wide. From the website, here’s a quick recap of how this committee would be composed: 16 Representatives from relevant neighborhood associations (encompassing or adjacent to “key transit corridors”) 32 Residents (including both homeowners and renters) from the relevant areas 16 (32?) Property owners and landlords from the relevant areas 16 Business owners and employees who work in the relevant areas 2 Representatives of local development and real estate interests 2 Representatives of transportation interests 4 Experts in relevant topic areas (climate recovery, architecture, services to low-income individuals, etc.) 3 Representatives of city commissions, including Planning, Human Rights, and Sustainability 3 Representatives of other key stakeholders (for example, the University) 2 Representatives from the city- staff and council TOTAL: 96 “representatives” Obviously, this is impractical. The proposal also includes broadening the scope to include affordable housing policy and addressing homelessness. The estimate is for another 18 months of meetings before getting around to some next step to address local situations. This necessarily would have to be a staff-driven process. One of the fundamental errors in the SW-SAZ process was “mission creep” that led to a geographic and conceptual broadening beyond the capacity for ensuring effective public engagement and support. The WE CAN proposal would multiply that problem by one or two orders of magnitude. The proposal also suggests a terribly flawed idea of having this committee “allocate” certain types of housing to the various transit corridors. From a practical standpoint, it would be impossible to do this with any reasonable empirical basis or fairness without fine-grained work and engagement in the various areas. This idea is a textbook example of cooking up some grand scheme that has no grounding in reality. It’s a non-starter. We have the necessary foundation to proceed The WE CAN proposal assumes the city can’t move ahead with refinement planning because the Envision Eugene document approved by City Council is inadequate. First off, that’s wrong – the EE document provides a good set of “pillars,” widely agreed upon. But the EE document goes further with respect to housing in particular, establishing for example that implementation strategies must “be in accordance with the goals and recommendations of the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting Task Teams. The EE Multiple-use (Re)Development Committee produced 18 very specific recommendations that would guide development along key transit corridors. The City Council has already directed that “Opportunity Siting” be the primary strategy for mixed-use development in established neighborhood communities. All that’s needed now is for the City Council to approve a “charter” with scope and specific direction for a Planning Team and a South Willamette Street Area Refinement Plan. This first effort would be the best way to work out the “kinks” so similar processes can be initiated in other areas. Although some revisions would no doubt improve the Brown/Clark Initiative, that document provides a concrete and viable starting point. A very great advantage of using this as the starting point is that the initiative is already widely supported by the community. Thank you for your consideration. Exhibit A. Neighborhood organizations that encompass or abut a “key transit corridor,” as identified on the Envision Eugene map: Active Bethel Citizens Cal Young Neighborhood Association Churchill Area Neighbors Southwest Hills Neighborhood Association Laurel Hill Valley Citizens Far West Neighborhood Association Friendly Area Neighbors Harlow Neighbors Jefferson Westside Neighbors Fairmount Neighbors Northeast Neighbors River Road Community Organization Santa Clara Community Organization Southeast Neighbors Trainsong Neighbors Whiteaker Community Council 09/19/2016 From Ron-JanetBevirt The conclusionsI’ve drawn from theSW-SAZsaga are: Changesto public policy regarding residential areas must be guided by those most affected. Oregon’s Goal OneisCitizen Involvement. neighborhood refinement plan A isthe best way tocreate planningpolicyfor an area. The “refinement plan”is Oregon’sstatutory form of a community-based plan. planning team The work is done by a with a majoritycomposition of residents and businesses from the affected area. The team also includes members from surrounding areas. impartial investigators The members of theplanningteamcommitto being to seek represents the unified view of the team as out all views and create a plan, which best representing community needs, values, and interests for the area. Residents andbusiness owners in a specifiedarea are best suitedtofocus on social,environmental andeconomic well-being the of that area. density, infill, A refinement plan isthe best wayto include the relevant issues of transportation, infrastructure, affordability, livability, climate change and sustainability while planning for future growth and development within Eugene’s residential areas. “Protect, Repair and The Neighborhood livability pillar of Envision Eugene is to Enhance Neighborhood Livability.” refinementplan A is the best way forresidents andbusinessesin an area (thathave thelargest stake in the area), to develop the policiesthat meet the goals and Envision Eugene and the Metro Plan. objectives of From Janet Bevirt 9/19/16 Read at Mayor’sForum To CityCouncilors, Mayor & City Manager I'mJanet Bevirt, I liveandownseveralpropertiesacrossthestreetfromtheWillardSchoolgrounds, in the Southwest Hills Neighborhood and own a lot in the Southeast Neighborhood. refinementplan A needs to be the foundation for any future changes of my andother neighborhoods, to mold the growthand development within theresidential and commercial areas, the transportation, infrastructure, density, infill,affordability and remains climatechangeissues, so that it sustainable, livable & walkable. negatively affected PresentlytheSouth Willamette Street change has West 29th Ave.There's a continual roaring sound of traffic now avoiding Willamette St and its shopping area. At times there's block long backed-up traffic from the Lincoln St and Increased congestionis unsafe Woodfield Station traffic lights. and not acceptable, traffic counting needs to be done on W 29th Ave. The Downtown no bike ridingon sidewalkslaw needs to apply to South Willamette St & 29thAve. It's absurd to provide bike lanes for bicycles & skateboards and see people not riding in them,but next to them on sidewalks, so thatpedestrians can't safe walkable sidewalks have . remain livable For neighborhoods to building developments needs toprovide adequate onsite parking. Cascade Manor'sbuildings(and others) needtoprovide ample employee, patron, resident & visitor parking. W 30th Ave is not their parking lot. There is no 1/2 car, so a halfparking space building site requirement is ridiculous low. but who are they lj The city doesnot require developersto divulge their investors, where are they from? 10-year tax breaks Developers apply forMUPTE. While yearly 3% taxincreaseStop property owners get a . thiscity budget rip-off policy MUPTEsubsidizing called , that has the general property owner thedeveloperand their wealthy investors. supports schools,parks lj natural,open, green spaces for   Envision Eugene healthy community so please keeptheWillard School publiclands and low density in theMetroPlan. should not negatively impact Multi-family housing options and housing mix established neighborhoods and businesses by decreasing solar access and privacy. I donot want a repeat oftheSouth WillametteSpecial Area Zone. I do not want Portland'sdensity,infill and affordability problems. ) support   refinementplanfortheSouthWillametteArea! ThisapproachwithCityPlannersassistance & CityCouncilssupporthassucceeded many timespreviouslyin Eugene. Please trust the citizens that live & own property in South Willamette and that run & own businesses here,toproduceproposalsfor policiesand implementation ideas to meet thegoals & objectives of Envision Eugene andthe MetroPlan, that are appropriate to the area wide neighborhood community support and have . Janet Bevirt 2915 Charnelton St Betty Taylor's Ward Please place in thepublic record for the 9/19/16 Mayor's Forum and a wanted South Willamette Refinement Plan. ŤƐƍƋľŵƇƊƊľſƌƂľŨƍƗƁƃľţſƒƍƌľŎŗōŐŎōŐŎŏŔ Pleasemakethisdocumentpartofthepublicrecordforthepublichearingheldon September19,2016. TheMayorsetup a publichearingostensiblyregarding“engagementprocesses”inthe now-withdrawnSouthWillametteplan.However,that isnotanaccuratedescriptionof thatpublichearing. Buriedinthetextisthefollowingsentence:“Inaddition,sincethisprojectwasthefirstof otherareaplanningeffortsthatwillbenecessarythroughoutthecommunitytomeetour EnvisionEugene goals, I inviteallcommunitymemberstoprovideideasaboutfuture engagementinneighborhoods.”Thatshouldmakeitclearthat,despitethevenue(SEHS cafeteria)andthespecialemailaddress(southwillamette@ci.eugene.or.us),thismeetingis aboutmorethanSouthWillamette. In thistestimony, I willdrawonly from thethreeplansaffectingtheSouthWillamette area:theSouthWillametteConceptPlan,theSouthWillametteSpecialAreaZoneplan, andtheSouthWillametteStreetImprovementPlan.Lessonsthatcanbelearnedhereare widelyapplicable. TheMayorwroteabout“engagementprocesses”andotherCityinformationhastalked about“communication”problems. I haveseennothingofthatmajorunderlyingproblem towhichtheOregonConsensusreportgave a prominentposition:trust.Itshouldbe obviousthatitdoesn’tmatterhowmuchcommunicationyouhaveifthecommunicating partiesdon’ttrustoneanother.Andengagementbetweenpartiesthatdon’ttrustone anotherwilllikelygonowhereorbecome hostile. In thisdocument, I havedealtwithitemsthatinvolvecommunicationandengagement,but thatdamagetrust. I havebackedupeverythingasthoroughlyaspossiblewithreferences thatcanbechecked,and I havetriedtobeasclearaspossible.Thatmakesfor a longer document,butreducestheamountofunverifiedopinion. I’m surethattherewillbe a lot ofopinionsandsuggestions. I try tobackupmysuggestionswithverifiablefactsand incidents. If youreadnothingelsehere,skiptothe Summaryattheendandreadthat. Deception , Lies, Exaggeration, Disingenuous statements,etc. Thesehavenoplaceinstaffreports.Inthefirsttwocase I reporthere,intentto“change thefacts”wasclearlypresentinone,andalmostcertainlyintheother.Thepublicis unlikelytocatchthissortofthing.EventhePlanningCommissionandtheCityCouncil caneasilybedeceived.Moredamagingtopublictrustare“borderline”cases,inwhich intentisunlikelytobeinvolved,andisinanycasehard to determine. I commentonthose typesofcaseslater.However, I thinkthatthesetwocases are significant.Howmany otherstherehavebeenishardtodetermine.They are toowell“covered”andeasyto overlook. Case 1 OnOctober21,2015,thePlanningstaffmadetheirreporttotheCityCouncilontheSouth WillametteSpecialAreaZone.SeniorPlannersHardingandHostickweretheplanners involved. A statementofSeniorPlannerHostickisnotable. I havetranscribeditasaccuratelyas possible from thestreamingvideo;thatcanbereferredtoasverification. It is approximately22:08(22minutes8seconds)intothevideo. Hostick:Sounfortunately,whatcanhappenwouldbethatnewdevelopmentwould actuallyberequiredtocomeuptothat 9-footsidewalk.So,thismayseem a little draconian,butthatisinfactwhatisallowedunderthecurrentcode.Andinfact ifyou weretobuild a higherbuildingthatiswhatwouldberequired. NotethatHosticksaysthatthishappen,andthatitisundercurrentcode,but canallowed ineachcasehethenignoresthat.Hestatesunequivocallythat“newdevelopmentwould tocomeuptothat 9-footsidewalk”,andthat"ifyou weretobuild a actuallyberequired higherbuilding"itwouldbetocomeupto thesidewalk \[mine\].The requiredemphasis argumentcouldhavebeen madejustaswellbyusing"allowed",buthehimselfwantsthe argumenttobeas"draconian"aspossibleinordertosellhisnewsolution. Thetwicemadeclaimthatbuildinguptothesidewalkisrequiredisclearlyfalse,anditis clearlydoneintentionally.Thatisthestandarddefinitionof a lie. Whydoesheputinthe"allow"atall?Maybehedoesn’tfeelfullycomfortabletelling a lie.Maybehewants a little“wiggleroom”.Maybethatis a consequenceofthefactthat hemadethatsameargument a coupleofyearsbefore,to a groupofmostlybusiness people,andthepersonwhohadrecentlydevelopedtheapartmentcomplexattheSE cornerofWillametteand24th Placesaidthathehadn'tbeenrequiredtobuilduptothe sidewalk.Hostickthenchangedhisstatementandsaidthatitwasallowedbutnot required.Nevertheless, 2 yearslater,hereheismakingthesamebogusclaim before the CityCouncil.HecanprobablybecertainthattheCouncildoesn'tknowtheCodeaswell asthedeveloper,butperhapstheearlierexperienceleadshimtoaddthat"wiggleroom" byputtingin'allow’beforecontradictingitbyemphasizing‘require’. \[Thepicturebelowaccompaniedthisportionofthepresentation.\] It shouldbeclearthatlyingisnotacceptableifyouwanttoavoiddistrust,and a justifiable distrust,oftheCity. Case 2 Hereisanotherexample,fromtheSouthWillametteStreetImprovementPlan. OnPage 2 ofSection1,whichisthe“Introduction”,wefindthefollowing: Thestudycorridoris a 0.8milesegmentofWillametteStreetbetween24thAvenueand 32ndAvenue.ThissectionofWillametteStreetis a minorarterialthatcarries approximately16,500vehiclesperday(1)... \[Thefootnoteintheoriginalprintedversionis a superscript(1),andthenoteisonpage 71(inthe"Endnotes”alongwithotherfootnotes)andreads: “(1)TubecountscollectedsouthoftheWillametteStreet/27thAvenueintersectionon 7/22/2010.” July22,2010 was a Thursday.\] The16,500numberisalsogiven(as"dailytrafficvolume")inthe"ExecutiveSummary" onPageiii.In a chartintheAppendix,theAverageDailytrafficvolume for 2012isgiven as16,360. Ithoughtthattheuseof a singlecounton a singledayinthemiddleofsummerwas slipshod.And I wassurethattheyhadotherdatacollectedoverlongerperiodsandmore places. It turnedoutthatitappearstohavebeen worsethanslipshod.InJanuaryofthis year(2016),whilelookingforsomethingunrelated, I cameupon a mappublishedin October2013bytheCityofEugene,PublicWorks - TransportationDivision.Thelabel on that map said: “Counts Shown Represent Typical Weekday, 24 Hour Volume Counts”. It addedthatthecountsweretaken from2006 - 2013.Sothatwasdataavailablein2013, andsomeofitwouldhavebeenavailablebeforetheirplanningstarted.Thefigureof 16,500accords reasonablywellwiththe16,000givenonthemapforthesectionof Willamettebetween27thand29th.Butthatwasnotthebusiestportionofthe24thto 32ndstretchofWillamette.Thebusiestsegmentwas from 24thto27th,wherethecount onthemap isgiven as19,800.That’s20%higherthanthe16,500 figure,andisabout 24%higherthanthecomparableaverageof16,000givenonthemap. (I callthatfigure comparablebecausetheybothcoverthesametimeframe;ifone figure wentup,perhaps theotheronedidtoo.Asthe16,000onthemap islow,the19,800onthemapmayalsobe low.)Sothestatementthat the“sectionofWillametteStreetbetween24th and32nd... carriesapproximately16,500vehiclesperday”isnottrue.It’struethatbeyond29ththe figure is,notsurprisingly,lower,butnorthof27ththefigureisnotablyhigher.Wouldn’t thehighestvolumebetheonetouse? Thesignificanceofthe“selective”andmisleadinguseof16,500cannotbefully understoodwithoutknowingsomethingabout“roaddiets”(asthesereductionofmotor vehiclelanesarewidelyknown).InNovember2014,theFederalHighway Administrationpublished a “RoadDietInformationalGuide”.Theguidewasapparently compiledfromAugust2011throughJuly2014,andinvolved a cooperativeeffortwith varioustransportationdepartments(orauthorities)andwithinformationfrom a numberof independentstudies. It isthemostbalancedpresentation I havefound. In thatguide,theAverageDailyTraffic(ADT),i.e.,vehiclecount,isconsidered a “good firstapproximation”ofwhetherortoconduct a feasibilitystudy.Differentareas use differentADTsranging fromaround15,000to25,000.Theguidesuggests20,000 as a goodfigure.Consideringthefactthattheycouldhavedone a feasibilitystudywhatever thefigures(upto25,000 atleast),whydidtheychoosetocite a lowerfigurethanactually existedforthe24thto32ndsegment? Considerthat inPasadena, CA theADTfor a feasibilitystudyissetat15,000.InLansing MI, thefigureis18,000.Seattlesetsthelimit at25,000(thehighestofthosecited inthe federallypublishedstudy).So a feasibilitystudy,letalone a pilotproject,wouldnothave beenconductedinPasadenaevenwiththe16,000figure,andinLansing withthe19,800 figure. ButinSeattleitwouldhavebeenokay.Whether a roaddietwill workornot dependson a lotoffactorsbesidestheADT. But thehigherthevolume,themorecareful andinvolved theplanninghastobe,andunlessotherfactorsaregoodtheless likelyitis for a roaddiettobefeasible.Sothelowerthefigureyoustart with,themore“room”you have to “play around in”. It just looks better. Againwehave a casewerethetruthwassidestepped,unnecessarily,inordertoproduce a better“image”,and a bettercasefor a feasibilitystudy. It seems thattellingthetruthis a problem for someCityemployees.Perhapsit’spolicy. Opiniononthesecases Ifindthiswholestateofaffairsbothirritatingand “depressing”. Many peoplewill,I’m sure,just writeitoffas“standardpractice”.Somewillgotolengthstogetaroundany “negative”characterizationofthisbehavior.Societyas a wholemayhavebecomeusedto beingliedto,butnotallofushave.Wewantthetruth,the“straight facts”.Whatever decisionismade,itshouldbemadewiththefullandhonestfacts. Misleading andDeceptiveStatementsWithoutIntent In theabovecases,Hostickclearlyknowsthetruth andchoosestomisrepresentit,andthe Transportationstaffalso mustknowthetruthandtheychoosetouseit“selectively”. But mostresidentsdon’tpickupon that.Whilesuchthingsenhanceanalreadycorrosive environmentwithintheCity,themajorityofwhatthepublicisfrustrated withisnotso deliberate. Noteverythingthatdeceives ormisleadsisproducedwiththeintenttodoso.Muchofthe time,suchthings are notintentional,butareduetooneormoreofthefollowing: ignorance,incompetence,indifference,carelessness,orself-deception. I think a greatdeal ofthedistrustarises fromthosesortsofcases.Citypersonalneedtoavoidthosethings. Themostdifficultisself-deception.Theothers are moreeasilyprevented,andhaveno placein a “professional”setting.Thedamagethatisdoneisthesamewhetherintentis presentornot.Peoplebecome fed upwithhavingto“teaseout”thetruth, andtheylose trustinwhatevertheCityistellingthem.There are a great manyexamples ofthat,but a detailedaccountwouldmakethisverylong. I willciteonlyone. Considerthefollowingquestionand answergivenintheOctober1,2015"Frequently Asked Questions”;youdon’thavetoreaditfullytogetmypoints,but I wantedtogiveit infull. My arguments are givenfollowingthequote,and I havemarkedthebeginningand end ofthequote,soyoucanjustlook attheboldtype,skimtherest,andcontinue. \[Beginquote.\] 11.Can I renovateoraddonto mybuildingwithouttriggering thenewcodedesign standards? Yes. The proposed code specifies that renovations and additions up to 30% (see below) do nottriggerthedesignstandards.Thetriggers are: Newdevelopmentonvacantproperty; Newbuildingsonpropertythatiscurrentlydeveloped; Alterationsofexistingbuildingsthatadd a dwelling(s),withspecificexceptionsfor qualifyingSecondaryDwellingUnits. ForpropertiesintheMixedUseorApartment/Condominiumsubdistricts:Expansionsof existingbuildingsquarefootageby 30percentormore,orthatexceed3,000squarefeet, whicheverisless; ForpropertiesintheSingleFamilyOptionssubdistrict:Expansionsof500squarefeetor 30percentormoreofthetotalexistingbuildingsquarefootageonthedevelopmentsite, whicheverisless.Incaseswherethestandardsapply,theyshallbeconsideredapplicable only for theportionofthedevelopmentsiteimpactedbytheproposeddevelopment. Additionally,thecity’sstandardprovisionsforrebuildingstructuresafter a catastrophe apply: a buildingdamagedin a fire,earthquakeorsimilareventcanberestored,aslongas thereconstructionbeginswithintwoyearsofthedamage. \[Endquote.\] Thisshouldbeviewedinit'soriginalform, toget a trueview.Bulletsandindentswere usedtomakethedetailedinformationstandoutbetter,andthequestionwasinlargerprint (andblue).Butthatisnotnecessarytomyargumenthere.Thatargumentisthatby Yes." putting the simple answer "in bold type at the beginning readers aregiven an automatic bias, and a simple answer. If the answer is really "Yes", then why would people readthedetails?Buttheyesismisleading:it'sreally"yes,butwithinlimits",or"that depends",or"Onlywithin certainlimits".Ofcourse,anyofthosewouldprobablybe likelytogetmoreattentionthan a simpleyes,andadditionalattentioniswhat'snecessary. Considerthat ifyouhave a smallhouseon a largelot,the30%rulereallylimits whatyou candointhewayofattachedadditions.Andexcept for a secondresidenceofrelatively smallsize,youcan'tbuildthat'snotattachedtotheexistingbuilding,i.e., a shop anything orgreenhouse.Ofcourse,thequestiononlydealswithrenovations andadd-ons.If "addition"wereused,somepeopleprobablywouldn’tseethedistinctionbetweenattached anddetached additionstotheirlivingspace,asin,‘Iwanttoadd a greenhouse’.Ofcourse plannersseethedistinction,butyou'renottalkingtoplannershere.Onecouldsaythatthe questioniscarefullyphrasedinordertomaketheanswercorrectandmakeeverything seemmoreacceptable. Atticrenovationsarepresumablyout,astheywouldexpandthesquarefootage(ofliving space)bymorethan30%.Itdependsonwhatismeant by"squarefootageonthe developmentsite".Sothatisunclear. Thepointisthatwhilepeoplemaysimpleanswers,youshouldn'tgiveorimplyone want thatisn'tthere.Noteverythingissimple,andintheCode,andtheZonerules,almost nothingissimple. I understandtheplannersdesiretoprovidesimpleanswers,andthe additionaltextgivethevariouslimits(with a littleuncertainty). But avoidthe does impliedsimplicityof a "yes"attheoutset. There are otheranswersthatfacethesamesortofprobleminthisandsimilardocuments: givinganinitialanswer(inboldorotherwise)thatcansatisfybut notbeaccurate;and creatingbiasattheoutset.Plannersandothersshouldn'tgetdefensiveaboutthat.The taskistomakepeopleunderstand,andiftheanswerisn’tsimple,it’srequires a more detailedexplanation. LessonsTo Be Learned What are thelessonsfromthesethreeexamples?Tellthetruthandthewholetruth.Avoid indifferenceandcarelessness.Counterself-deceptionbypayingattention(notjust “listening”)topeoplewithotherviewpoints:theymayberight.Don’tsimplifyjustto satisfyortogetconsent. Engagement WhatabouttheCity’s“engagementprocess”? I havechosenwhat I seeas a striking exampleoffailurewhichtheCityPlanningDepartmentchosetomakesomethingof a “visualcenterpiece”.Thepicturesgivenbelowweretakenfromthe“old”website(last year);oneisstillonthe“new”websitein a differentrole;andsomealsomadean appearanceattheCouncilWorkSessionpresentationonOctober21,2015. \[ThephotoswereretrievedonOctober20,2015,fromhttp://www.eugene-or.gov/ index.aspx?NID=2675.The linknolongertakesyouthere;itredirectstothecurrent SouthWillametteAreaPlanningUpdatespage.\] \[Textcontinuesfollowingthephotos.\] There are a numberofthingsthatstandouttomeregardingthis.First,intheSouth WillametteSpecialAreaZonewebsitelastyearthesepictureswerepartof a “rotating” displayatthetopofthewebsite(similartothenewsite,butsmallerimages). In fact,they constitutedalloftherotatingdisplay: outof13photos,11wereofoneeventand 2 were at anotherevent(apparentlyinanunidentifiedpark).Consideringthattheplannershave talkedabouthavingseveral‘charrettes’and‘parklets’it’snotclearwhytheyconcentrated onone.Perhapsit’sbecauseArriving By Bikewas a supporteroftheplan(oneperson suggestedthat).Perhapsthereweren’treallythatmanysuchevents. Theeventinthepark (2 pictures)appearstobeclearlylabelledandobviousas a City-run informationalbooth(notethe‘tablecloth’). TheoneatArrivingByBike(11pictures)isannouncedby a chalkboardsignwhichhasat thebottom“Partnership withEugenePlanningandUOAAA”. It doesn’tsayCityof Eugeneandit’snotclearwho’srunningit.Equallyimportantisthenatureofthesign. I gobysuchchalkboardsignsall thetime.They are used foradvertising atimelyspecial, oroccasionallyaneventofinteresttothebusiness’sclientele. I rarelyreadthem: ‘chalkboardsign,advertising,don’tneedit’.It'sverycleartomethat thissign,andevent, couldbedismissedaslocaladvertisingbyanyonegoingby,eveniftheywerewalking. edoesreadthesign,it’slikelytoappearasanArriving By Bikeevent.“Eugene Evenifon Planning”canbeinterpretedastheCity’sPlanningDepartment,butitmightreferto somethingfromtheUO,whichisclearlyinvolved,orfromArriving By Bike,orfrom someotherorganization.Itmightjustbe a phrase,althoughthe“and”makesthatunlikely. Ifthereisanythingvisibletopassers-bytoidentifythisas aCityofEugeneevent, it’snot clearinthephotos,andtheeventiswelldocumentedvisually.(Notethatthesign apparentlychangesplacelaterintheday,unless itwasjustputintheupperpositionfor a photo.) IfthisisthebesttheCityPlanning Departmentcando, that’ssad. I thinkthisis a caseof thingsbeingobvioustothoseonthe“inside”(planners andothers)andsotheyassume thateveryoneelsewill“getit”too.That’s a common,butbad,assumption.(That assumptionwillshowupagain when I gettoTerminology.) LessonsTo Be Learned Don’tassumethat justbecauseit’scleartoyouthatitwillbecleartootherpeople. If it’s aCity run event,oriftheCityis‘officially’involved,thenmaketheCityofEugene’s involvementprominentandclear. Terminology: Plannervs. Public Theneedtodefinetermshasbeencommentedonbyotherpeopleandisimportant.But beyondthatisthenatureoftheterminologythatisused.Manyterms are familiarto plannersandotherpeoplewhospend a significantpart oftheirtimeinplanningcircles. They are notfamiliartothegeneralpublic,andsocauseconfusionandfrustratepeople’s attempttounderstandwhat’sgoingon;they are “off-putting”. Theserangefromcommonlymisunderstoodterms,suchasmedianand average(ormean), tothemoreesotericterms,suchas“charrette”and“parklet”. Commonlymisunderstoodterms are hardtodealwith,justbecausethey are common; peopleneedtohavelearnedthem for manypurposes,buttheymaystillnotunderstand them.That’snotsomethingthat a planningdepartmentcandealwith.Theydoneedtobe usedcarefully,andnotbeinterchangedinordertogetthedesiredresults.I’veseenno indicationthattheCitydoesthat,it’sjustsomethingonehastobeonguard against,both inproducinginformationandassessingit. TheCitydoesappeartohavemorethanonefigurefor“medianincome”whichhas becomeensnaredin a bureaucraticmorass.Whichfigureisbeingused,andwhy,needsto bemadeclear. More troublesome, buteasiertoavoidarethe“insiderterms”. I mentionedcharretteand parklet: I havetroublebelievingthatmanypeopleknowwhatthoseterms mean,andthere arewell-understoodalternatives.It’smorethanmeaninginvolved:it’sthewaythingsare framed.Usinginsiderterms makespeoplefeelliketheprocessinlessthanwelcomingto thetypicalindividual.“Parklet”is a wordyou arehardputeventofindin a dictionary,as itonlyemergedaround2005,andinplanningcircles.Andjusttocomplicatematters,the Cityplanningstaffuses itin a waythatdoes notseemtobeinaccordwiththewaythat theAmerican PlanningAssociationusesit. A divisionoftheAPAiswhatpasses outthose AIClettersthatmanyoftheseniorplannersincludewiththeir names. \[Ifyou wanttoseetheAPA’sideaof a parklet a cleardefinitionisontheoutlineofan APAeventathttps://www.planning.org/events/activity/4171417/. Thekeystatement is: “Theelementsof a parklet - a parkingspottransformedinto a tinypublicrelaxation area....”Soit’spurposeis a “relaxation area”,not aplaceforgivingoutinformation. Althoughinformationcouldbepassedoutthere,parkletsaregenerallylonger-term,and notprimarily for passingoutinformation,althoughthatappearstobehowtheCity plannersuseit,astheytalkofholdingparkletstogiveoutinformation.\] Termslike“moderate”and“affordable”aresubjective.“Moderate”isdefinedas “average”insomeway(where“average”isusedloosely,morelikemedian).But ‘moderate’appearstobeusedbytheCityto meanbelowthemedianincome – it’shardto tellhowit’s used,andit’susemaynotbeconsistent. The term “workforcehousing”hasbecomestandard,despiteobjectionsfromsomeinthe planningcommunity. It tookmesometimetofindoutwhattheCitymeantbyit,and I’m notsure I haveitstraightyet.Anditseemstobeuseddifferentlyindifferentlocales. Termslikelowincome,middle income,andhighincomecanbeclearlydefined,andhave moremeaninginmostpeoples’minds.Workforcehousingleavesout a largeportionof theworkforce.Sowhyuseit? Charretteandworkforce are justtwoofthose“trendy”termsthathavebecome“in” in planningcircles,andthat’sjustthesortofthingyoushouldavoidwhencommunicating withthepublic.Makethepublicfeelwelcome,notlikeoutsidersthatneedtobe “initiated”. Lessons To BeLearned Usecommonterms,not“planner-speak”.Define thetermsyouuse;thedefinitionmaybe obvioustoyou,ortoplannersandotherswhoareheavilyinvolvedintheplanning process,butnottothepublic.Rememberwhoyouraudienceis. Summary There are otherthingsthatneeddoing,butthey’re notinthedomainoftheplanning departments.ButthelessonshereareapplicableeverywhereintheCity,notjustinthe planningdepartments. Tosummarizewhathasbeensaidabove,it’seasiesttojustreviewthelessonstobe learned.Theyaren’talways easytofollow:there’sno“magicbullet”here,justthings which,ifthey are worked at,willpay off. Thingswon’teverbe‘perfect’.Justmakethembetter. LessonsTo Be Learned Tellthetruthandthewholetruth. Avoidindifferenceandcarelessness. Counterself-deceptionbypayingattention(notjust“listening”)topeoplewithother viewpoints:theymayberight. Don’tsimplifyjusttosatisfyortogetconsent. Don’tassumethatjustbecauseit’scleartoyouthatitwillbecleartoother people. Ifits a City run event,oriftheCityis‘officially’involved,thenmaketheCityof Eugene’sinvolvementprominentandclear. Usecommonterms,not“planner-speak”. Definethetermsyouuse;thedefinitionmaybeobvioustoyou,ortoplanners andothers whoareheavilyinvolvedintheplanningprocess,butnottothepublic. Rememberwhoyouraudienceis. Submitted by: WillEaton Wards 1 & 2 (twofamily-owned,family-occupiedhouses) Eugene,OR97405 Pleasemakethisdocumentpartofthepublicrecord for thepublichearingon September19,2016. From Annete Gurdjian 09/20/2016 Dear CityCouncilandmayor, I attended last night's forum wasnot able to arrive in time to sign up to speak. I wish to say that I fully support a refinement plan for our neighborhood. I alsosupport the motionbytwo citycouncil members, GeorgeBrownandMike Clark. Noone knows a neighborhood better than its residents,whetherthey arehomeowners,renters, business owners, landlords or developers. Just as I amunqualified and incapable ofdecidingthefate of zoning or other changes in theBethel or Trainsong neighborhoods, I feel that residents of other neighborhoodswho are not familiar with South Eugene should not be deciding the fateorchangesthat should occur in my neighborhood. Nor are city plannersuniquely qualifiedto act of their ownaccord. I mustsay, in the past, post Torrey administration, I looked favorably upon the city government of Eugene.However, in view of1. the cityhall debaclewhere the oldcity hall was needlessly and heedlessly torn down while fully functional BEFORE a plan wasin place forits replacement, 2. thewasted timeand effort in the proposed SW- SAZ, including the hiring of consultants to state what was so obvious, and 3. the clingingof the outgrown City Manager type of government, my views have changed. I am completely dismayed and my views on city government have turned negative. I feel that the city is being mismanaged (and we cannot vote the city manager out of office), and a lot of money is beingwasted. I also feel that the city is acting in a way that givestheperception that it favors developers andmoneyed people over and above good decision making. Sincerely, Annette Gurdjian From Ed Moye 09/20/2016 My name is ed moye and I paytaxes in Betty Taylor’s neighborhood OverthepastyearmyhomehasbeenassaultedbySWSAZ.Duringthattime,along with hundreds of my neighbors, I have attended endless meetings. At no time, in any ofthosemeetings,have I ever heardanyone, wholives in the neighborhood, denounce densification. Most just want to see infill that doesn’t destroytheir neighborhood. It is my belief that the Brown/ Clark Plan presents thebest hope to these legitimate ambitions. But tohearthe Mayor tell it, there is still not enough public comment. As we enter the secondyearofsuchcomment,itseemstomethatthecityispushinganother SWSAZesque,topdown, “We know best” process. After a year of working to marginalizetheaffected neighbors, the city plannerswant to get more input from people who don’t actually live there(Which is how they came up with SWSAZ in the firstplace!). I predict, that chaos will again ensue. Then “We know best” planners will step in, cherry pick the “public” comments, and Son of SWSAZ will rise from the ashes. 600 Over the past year, over 600 people, have signed a petition denouncing SWSAZ people! They likewise implored the city to implement a Refinement Plan, where the neighborhoods drive the plan, not the planning department and not carpetbaggers from outside the area. After all, if you actually want to know about neighborhood, who are you going to ask? The people who live there or paid lobbyists from Salem, Portland, and New York City. My neighborhood is eager to proceed with the Brown/ Clark Plan, yet the city wants to ignore the offer. The planners have made a big public show of denouncing SWSAZ. But, if they want to heal swsaz’s wounds, they need to play a role much closer to a helpful County Agent, than to a slippery apologist for the Emperor’s New Clothes. Let the neighborhood drive these decisions and support them in accomplishing their goals. Only then will the city earn the right to say they work for “We the People”. The Brown/Clark plan alsosets the stage for other neighborhoods to see the planning process as an opportunity, not a tax supported assaulton the homes they hold dear. If city planners insist on a top down paradigm, I foresee a long, bitter fight. South Willamette Neighbors group willbegladto help other nascent neighborhood groups toorganizeand fight any Sonof SWSAZ! As a member of South Willamette Neighbors These Group, I canassure youthat ourarguments will not be swept under the rug. are people’shomes. ȏ Isn’t it time ourtaxes went toward Envision Eugene’s legally mandated goal to Protect, Repair, and Enhance neighborhood livability” ? The Brown/Clark Plan offers a great opportunity to get towork on that future.Just what are wewaiting for? After all this has been in the works for 6 years already! ed moye 70 w 30th Eugene, Oregon 97405 From Jane Katra 09/20/2016 Dear MayorPiercy and council members, I am JaneKatra, a residentinSEEugenefor43years, currentlyresidingat4017 Dillard, Rd., Eugene, 97405. I am caring for a sick friend in Seattle,and was not able to attend the forum last night. I'd like to contribute now, if I may. 1.I wholeheartedly support the development of a refinement plan for the SWSAZ and south east Eugene. It is a tried and truly workable state-recommended solution with legal clout, which we want and deserve. 2.I support the Brown-Evans Initiative. The people who live in and own houses and businesses in theaffected neighborhoods, along withlots of help from those of us among the 700 signers wholivewithin the 4 neighborhoods surrounding the SWSAZ will collaborate and producegoodplansfor the area. 3.I washighly angry and horrifiedto learn that our planners decided that all the charming and affordable houses between Willamette St. andAmazon Parkway, alongwith thesmallhouses and little gardens in the blocks south of 30th andeast of Willamette St. in the SWSAZ, were expendable. I and my newly-retired friends are wanting tomoveout of ourlargerhouses,nowthat ourchildren are grown and gone. It's really hard to find a small house to buy in those charming areas! Everyone wants them! We seniors are competing to buy there withfirst-time home owners. Those small houses with little gardens, on level ground perfect for bicycling, are already 20 minute neighborhoods!!!! I've been looking forwardtomovingthere for years! Those are just the kinds of houses we love! Groups of such cottages with community commons areas and gardens are wonderful. Now I and my friends are afraid to buy there. We don't want multi-storied buildings to ruin our sunlight for gardens. 4.Please let people fromthe four affected neighborhoodschoose "opportunity sites" for the construction of multiple family dwellings, in placesalong themain transportation corridors that are already available. We have foundmany such places. 5.Please do notchange the zoning of R-1 neighborhoods in such a way as to allow developers to buy up perfectlygood houses and tearthemdown and turn neighborhoods into their investment properties. This iswhat is happening in Seattle and Portland, where buyers can't compete with foreign investors who pay large sums ofcash to out-bid anyone else and then teardown the houses and makeit impossibleforpeopleto buy houses at all. Please choose specific sites within neighborhoods for development. 6.Please protectthe availabilityof sunlight for growing food forresidentsin R-1 neighborhoods, andplease make it a priority to preserve the tall evergreentrees which we are so blessed to have, and which are notreplaceable.Please have partof our planners' jobs be to protect and increase urban bee habitats and the planting of urban trees. I will never believe that the Eugene Planning Department really cares about sustainability if they do not have the protection of solar access, the planting of trees and the development of urban bee habitats as part of their jobs. 7.I won'tbelieve the council is concernedabout sustainability until they mandate the useof sustainable building designsand materials and heating systems in the buildings for which they grant MUPTE. It's obvious that we don't need MUPTE at all, actually. If all these people are coming to Eugene, why do developers need tax breaks? Please do away with MUPTE. Thanksfor reading. Sincerely, JaneKatraSeptember20,2016 To:Mayor, City Council,City Manager, and PlanningStaff From: Joyce Eaton Date: 09/20/2016 Re: Based on my City Council forum testimony on 09/19/2016, on honesty in presentations for South Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ) With regard to the city’s engagement process on South Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ), this is what seemed to be lacking with South Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ): honest presentations and information given by the city with regard to SW-SAZ. A large share of the information was accurate and honestly presented, but not all of it was. Those areas that were not are what are damaging to trust between the residents and the city. th th 1.The geographic area for SW-SAZ started out from 24to 29, but the final draft of the Concept Plan (and the city’s South Willamette web page, until the recent revision) listed the geographic rd to 32 nd Avenues”. extent of SW-SAZ as “from 23 nd Truth: If you look at any of the maps in the SW-SAZ code proposal, SW-SAZ goes from 22 rd Avenue to 33Avenue. 2.The Concept Plan listed Southtowne Business Association (SoBA) as a “vibrant” business association. Truth: It is not clear how “vibrant” it was. Some members were active, but information indicate that most members were never active. It seems to have started out as a group with plans for the marketing of South Willamette area and with “beautification” of the street environment (e.g., putting up flower baskets like in downtown areas). I’ve never seen flower baskets along the street, or any other projects credited to the group, so that doesn’t seem so successful. Within one month of approval of the Concept Plan, SoBA was dissolved. This doesn’t seem to me to be a “vibrant” business association. It matters how “vibrant” the SoBA is, because SoBA continues to be used as a legitimization factor for the massive rezoning of South Willamette in SW-SAZ (as in “the community asked for it”, when really all people were asking for was to make Willamette Street look better). st 3.Robin Hostick in at least two meetings (October 21presentation to the City Council and August 2013 meeting with businesses) has said that the commercial buildings are “required” to build on the property line. Truth: The C-2 commercial zone allows property owners to build on the property line, but they are not required to build there. For C-2 properties, the city of Eugene building code has a 0 foot to 15 foot setback, so a C-2 property owner can choose to build 15 feet from the property line. Most people walking along Willamette Street don’t want buildings built right on the property line, so why overstate your case, saying that owners are “required” to build on property line? It is bad enough to say that they are allowed to build right by the sidewalk (the current narrow public right of way along Willamette Street). Page 1 of 7 9/20/2016 4.The South Willamette Metro Plan Designation maps (current and proposed) seem to be “designed to deceive”. In the map for the Current Metro Plan Designation, the colors for medium density and for high density, both a fairly dark orange color, are so close that they are almost indistinguishable. The medium density color is only slightly lighter than the higher density. (Colors so similar to represent different segments violates what I was taught as good rules for cartography by a former UO professor of mine, Dr. Bill Loy.) So when you compare th orange colored areas of the two maps north of 24and south of 29th, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of change. Truth: There is a lot of change. The areas of medium density in the current Metro Plan are the orange colored lots that are south of 29 th Avenue and also the lots north of 24 th Avenue on the east side of Willamette Street. Yet when you visually compare the current and proposed maps (looking at the areas where both maps have the orange color), with nearly the same colors for medium and high density, it gives the illusion that the change would be small for these orange colored areas. It is not. Medium density usually is equated with R-2 city zoning, which limits buildings to 35 feet. High density is either R-3 at 50 feet or R-4 at 120 feet. The difference between a medium and a high density designation means that Cascade Manor could build a 90 foot building, instead of a mere 35 foot tall building. This is almost a 3-fold increase in height. That is a huge difference. Page 2 of 7 9/20/2016 To accurately portray medium density in the “Current” version of the map, the medium density should have been a similar color to the LMDR in the “Proposed” version of the map (although the LDR and LMDR are also a bit too similar in color when viewed on the map for my taste, at least they are distinguishable). st 5.In the October 21work session, the transitions drawing seemed to make SW-SAZ transitions much better than the current transitions already in place in the building codes. Truth: a.First, the drawing isn’t to scale. If you measure the 35 foot maximum mark on the first page, divide by 7, the distance for the 5 feet remaining is larger than the measure of 5 feet marked on the page (the distance between the fence and building). So it shows the building as closer than it really can be (it should be about ¼ larger than what is marked). b.Given the 35 foot height, the teeny tiny R-1 house comes out to only 15 feet high (including what seems to be a pitched roof), with no mention that R-1 can go to 30 feet high, plus the same additional pitched roof height that is allowed in R-2. But the drawing does show the R-2 house at maximum height of 35 feet with additional pitched roof height. The truth is that there is only a 5 feet maximum height difference between these two zones. Not many people would be worried about this. c.It implies that R-3 and C-2 can be full height at only 5 feet away from R-1. Not so. What most people are worried about is R-3 or C-2 buildings next to R-1 or R-2. The current building code takes care of this, being restricted to the same height as the adjoining R-1 or R-2 property for the first 50 feet. (Kevin Shanley drafted the existing building code diagram on the next page.) Page 3 of 7 9/20/2016 Next to an R-1 property, R-3 or R-4 or C-2 buildings are limited to 30 feet high for the first 50 feet. Next to an R-2 property, R-3 or R-4 or C-2 buildings are limited to only 35 feet high for the first 50 feet. st Thedrawings givenintheOctober 21presentationalsodo notsayanythingabout the alternative given to developers: to have the building at full height a mere 30 feet from the property line. This might not make a difference with smaller buildings, but when the maximum height gets to 90 feet (7 stories) as proposed at Cascade Manor or 90 or 120 feet (7 stories or 9 stories when including a 2-story bonus) at Woodfield Station areas, it makes a difference. To have an honest presentation, the difference between R-1 and R-3 or C-2 should also have been included, and also display the alternative transitions, all in a cross-sectional diagram like the one given. I will admit that the proposed transition seems to be much better for going from R-1 to R-2, and it should be adopted throughout the city, not just in a special area zone. \[Oh, but wait – the SW- SAZ transition does not apply between SFO and SFO-RA, and isn’t this more or less equivalent to R-1 and R-2? If so, why did they provide the example of transition between R-1 to R-2? Could it be because they were trying to make it look better than it really is, and the transition from R-1 to R-3 doesn’t look as bad? And they also don’t mention that no transition is necessary when your R-1 property located next to C-2 property is rezoned to AC and the C-2 property goes to MU – then SW-SAZ transitions do not apply here.\] Going from SFO to the new MU and AC designations, the sloped transition with regard to the building height is more or less visually the same (for a person in an R-1 house, looking over to a MU or AC). However, I personally like the sloped transitions allowed for in SW-SAZ between SFO and MU or AC, because with the sloped transition, it would give the opportunity to have terraced roof gardens instead of a flat 30 foot roof for 50 feet back. The transitions can honestly be sold on this basis. But the full height at only 30 feet back option should be nixed. This is much worse than the current transition. Page 4 of 7 9/20/2016 st 6.October 21work session, the proposed changes in building height diagram makes it look like SW-SAZ is doing everyone a favor by decreasing building height. Truth: a.The diagram uses a mishmash of current zoning and Metro Plan designation, whichever seems to make it look the most favorable in reducing heights. Two examples: i.Portland Street between 24 th and 25 th is low density in Metro plan, but R-2 in city zoning. The document uses the higher density city zoning, so the height difference comes out the same number of stories (3 to 3) rather than an increase in ½ story (2.5 to 3). ii.Willamette Street on the west side from West 23 rd to West 22 nd Avenues, the diagram shows a decrease of 8 stories (11 to 3 stories). The current zoning is R-3 (limited to 50 feet, which in other places is listed as 4.5 stories), and the Metro Plan is high density which includes both R-3 and R-4. To make the diagram more dramatic, the city selected the maximum available height for R-4 at 11 stories. Because R-3 is used in areas of Metro Plan high density designation, any honest presentation would display this section as a maximum of only 4.5 stories. This is still a worthwhile decrease of 1.5 stories, given the surround residential area, but it shouldn’t have been portrayed as an 8 story decrease. b.Comparing the fixed feet in the current code with the “stories” in SW-SAZ land does not tell the full story. For example: i.The existing R-3 maximum height is 50 feet, not the 65 feet allowed for a 5- story SW-SAZ apartment/condo building. ii.Going from 50 feet to 65 feet is a 25% increase in height, yet miraculously this comes out as only a “1/2 story increase” when comparing the current R-3 zone (50 foot with 4.5 stories) to the proposed SW-SAZ apartment/condo zone (65 foot 5-story SW-SAZ building). iii.Most of the housing in SW-SAZ has 8 foot ceilings, so an extra 15 feet in height would normally be adding closer to 2 stories. iv.What is most significant in blocking solar access and visual openness is the height of the building in feet – not the number of floors. c.For mixed use area in SW-SAZ (such as Woodfield Station or the commercial strip along Willamette), there is the potential for a 2-story bonus, given for “open space”. That would make Woodfield Station area’s true maximum height for a height difference map to be at 9 stories. Since in the SW-SAZ code 7 stories is a maximum of 90 feet high and 8 stories is 105 feet high (a difference of 15 feet), then that would make 9 stories exactly the same height that the SW-SAZ plan was supposedly protecting us from: 120 feet. Currently, C-2 and R-4 maximum heights are 120 feet. hy is 120 feet in current code coming out to be 11 stories, yet 120 feet in SW-SAZ \[And w land is only 9 stories? It shows the folly of comparing apples with oranges –aka feet in the current code, and stories in SW-SAZ land.\] Page 5 of 7 9/20/2016 d.Nowhere in the diagram does it take into account the current “transition” that is currently in the building code: R-3 and C-2 buildings can be built only to 30 feet high for that part of the building that is located within 50 feet of R-1 lots (single family housing) – or only to 35 feet when located within 50 feet of R-2 lots. i.This current limitation should make the first 50 feet next to any R-1 lot only 2.5 stories high. (I remember being told by one of the planners that they left it off for the sake of simplicity.) ii.For the east side of Oak Street between 28 th and 29 th Avenues, the C-2 lots are only 100 to 125 feet wide. The diagram lists an 8 story decrease (11 to 3 stories). But with the required limitation of only 30 feet high for the first 50 feet bordered by R-1 to the east, it may be theoretically possible, but it is impractical to have the remaining 50 to 75 feet of the lot go to 11 stories. The current limitation in city code is what protects R-1 and R-2 lots now. Most of the commercial strip between 28 th and 24 th Avenues are pretty narrow, too. For Capella Market, a third of the lot is restricted to 30 feet. This is not to say that the explicit reduction of building height is bad (e.g., theoretical 120 fee to 30 or 45 feet). It just should be presented fairly. However, all of the narrow lots could just be re-classified as C-1 Neighborhood Commercial, and it would solve most of the problems with transitioning between commercial and R-1 (it also gives a 10 foot set back from property line). In my opinion, the diagram should compare ONLY with the current zoning, because this is what you see when you look up your lot in the City of Eugene’s property explorer; you do not see the Metro Plan designation. There are more problems than the six problems that I have listed. Taken individually, a problem can be seen as an inadvertent error. But together, it gives the appearance that the city planning team is either indifferent, incompetent, or in cahoots with the developers. I don’t believe that this is the case, but appearances do matter. Oregon Consensus cited a lack of trust with the city. These are just some of the reasons. But it is more than just a matter of trust. The City Council and Mayor rely on city staff to provide accurate information. When there are inaccuracies, half-truths, or leaving out part of the story to make Page 6 of 7 9/20/2016 things look better than they really are – that is a true disservice not just for residents but for everyone in the city. And when people said that they were not heard, at least as far as the residents in and around SW-SAZ, it was more a matter of they were not listened to. Please make this part of the public record for testimony on South Willamette, so future planning can learn from these mistakes. Sincerely, Joyce Eaton, Wards 1 & 2 (two family owned and occupied homes, one in SW-SAZ and one within 500 feet of SW-SAZ) Page 7 of 7 9/20/2016 To: Mayor, City Councilors, City Manager, and Planning Staff From: Joyce Eaton Re: Affordability of housing in SW-SAZ Date: 09/20/2016 Re: Based on my testimony to City Council January 25, 2016 I spoke at two City Council forum on housing affordability in South Willamette Special Area Zone (SW- th SAZ), in the fall of 2015 and again on January 26, 2016. Also, out of the 27 houses on my block, I was able to talk to people at 23 houses. People at 20 of the houses signed the SW-SAZ petition for a refinement plan. This list included 7 people who were renters (from 7 different houses). It is not just the resident property owners that disapprove this plan. I was going to go to the apartment complex next, but then thankfully Mike Clark put forth his proposal, which started to put the brakes on SW-SAZ. So we could have gotten way more than the 600+ signed petitions asking for suspension of SW-SAZ and a refinement plan. If you looked at the city’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for SW-SAZ in fall 2015 and spring 2016, the reason for SW-SAZ is not for increasing density (city planner Will Dowdy admitted during a Friendly Area Neighborhood meeting that there is already enough capacity within SW-SAZ to meet the 20-year goal; see the ** note below). The real reason is for adding high priced design standards (aka gentrification), but what they don’t say is that it will convert an affordable, reasonably priced housing area into a high priced subdivision. Since my testimony in early 2016, Mia Nelson of 1000 Friends of Oregon and others in WE CAN have repeatedly said that the residents that were speaking up were all property owners and not renters. No one heard from the renters. What amazes me with this sort of comment, is that renters are precisely the population that will be most likely to be displaced. So if renters truly knew what the SW-SAZ had proposed, they would be against it. For example, the apartment complex bordering on Willamette Street that goes down my street is very affordable. One of the deli workers at Capella Market lives there. I asked him how much he pays for rent, and he said it was $795 for a 2-bedroom apartment, what most places charge for a 1-bedroom apartment. Yet SW-SAZ would turn this affordable apartment into Mixed Use zone, with no requirement for residential units. What would most likely happen would this affordable apartment would be torn down – and then where would the Capella Market worker live? In the only new construction for apartment buidings, Parvin Place, that charges around $1300 for a 2-bedroom apartment? Not likely. The 2014 Redevelopment Capacity report explicitly states that they expect rents to go up at least 25% (ignoring the fact that the recent Parvin Place apartment complex on Willamette Street has rents 35% higher per square foot than other rentals in SW-SAZ). It will make the area unaffordable for a large segment of the existing population. ecent blurb from the city on the Single Family Option zone, it says the purpose is to provide In a r “smaller” and “entry-level” housing, so let’s look at that claim. In my fall 2015 testimony, I rattled off the prices and square footage of the prototype housing developments listed in the Redevelopment Capacity report. However, I made a mistake in the square footage. What I was looking at was the building layouts, so the square footage was the building FOOTPRINT. Later I discovered by looking at the table extremely tiny font that these numbers were way too small: The report has prototype housing developments in the existing R-1 areas, spending $23,000 to tear down two houses (with average size around 1200 square feet) to build the following: Over $700,000 for one of four 4,089 square foot narrow houses, or Almost $600,000 for one of four 3,232 square foot one half of a duplexes (also called twin or attached “cottage”), or Around $350,000 for one of four 1,933 square foot row houses Around $325,000 for one of eight 1,791 square foot courtyard houses Around $275,000 for one of five to six 1,532 square foot cottage clusters Each of these proposals are way over the average size of single family homes (most are between 900 and 1200 square feet). The average size of my two family homes is 920 square feet. Proposing something for this neighborhood in these price and size ranges, especially the 4,000 square foot behemoth, frankly is just plain obscene. rd An 884 square foot 2 bedroom 1-bath house on East 23Avenue sold for $175,000 in November 2015. The only thing smaller about these housing units is the size of their yards, and they cannot be considered “entry level” housing. These prices would not be affordablefor most of the current residents. The city’s 2011 Neighborhood th Analysis of the area between Amazon Parkway and Willamette Street between 29and 24th Avenues list the median household income below $23,000 and median family income below $40,000, so low to middle class incomes. Certainly not able to afford the prices of the prototype housing developments. What is in SW-SAZ currently in the residential area is truly smaller and entry level housing. Let’s keep it that way. As my mother-in-law disgustedly said when looking at some of the plans, “These people, all they can think about is what they can change to make money.” I agree with her disgust. Gentrification usually has the benefits of increasing the quality of the schools and making safer neighborhoods, but this neighborhood already has that. It will have only the downside of gentrification – displacing the existing residents, those who are in rentals or those who don’t like having their former gardens shaded by the 5 to 7 to 9 story buildings that SW-SAZ allows with the 2-story “bonus” in mixed use areas. For SW-SAZ, you can keep the changes to the existing commercial area (but limit it to 3 stories near residential areas), but leave the residential properties alone. Sincerely, Joyce Eaton ** Will Dowdy, one of the city’s urban planners, was at the Friendly Area Neighbors fall general meeting to answer questions about SW-SAZ. Will didn’t know the answer to my question on what the minimum and maximum number of additional multi-family dwellings that would be built if all rezoned properties in the apartment/condo sections were built. So I asked him how do they know if whether or not they have enough capacity to meet the 20-year goal for additional density? He responded that SW-SAZ already has enough capacity to meet this goal. Incredulous, I said, “I thought that was the reason for all this rezoning, to meet density requirements?”, and he responded that no, there were other reasons. I was too dumbfounded to ask the real reason. To: Mayor, City Council,CityManager,andPlanningStaff From: Joyce Eaton Date: 09/20/2016 Re: Based on my City Council forum testimony on10/12/2015,being againstSouth Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ), and lack of adequate public engagement I am talking for two different family houses in and near the SW-SAZ. Both houses are owned and occupied by family members. One house is a 1000 square foot house on Willamette Street at the south end of SW-SAZin FriendlyArea Neighbors (the non-college hill sideofWillamette Street). The other house is a 600 square foot house a block off SW-SAZin Southeast Neighbors (the non-Cascade Manor side of Willamette Street). Both houses were purchased new in the late 40s, the first house occupied continuously by family since purchased, and the second house for 28 years of its lifespan. Bothaddresses arerepresented by Betty Taylor from Ward 2. Both places received notice of the Open House before the Planning Commission hearing (because mail is not delivered to one of the houses, we onlyreceived the notification that was sent to our post office box). In August 2013, I also attendedone of the “Stakeholdermeetings”.Itwas the “Long Term th Vision for South WillametteStreet” meeting onAugust 12, 2013. Why did I attend? I attended the meeting because we received a postcardthatwassent to the2311 Willamette Street house as a property owners along Willamette. \[The meeting focused exclusively on Willamette Street current commercial area, going over the new setbacks, and giving examples of businessmakeoversusing new design features. In the new mixed use area, it showed examples with the upper floors with large residential areas, although there is no required rd residential units for mixed use. At one point, I asked specifically about the block between23 and 24 th Avenues,and I was told that it would beapartment/condos. Since the 2311 Willamette Street house is currently zoned R-3 andwe have house to apartment conversions on either side of us, this wasn’t a surprise. However, the devil is in the details, and we didn’t see thesedetails until thenotification Open House.\] My mainpoint is, however, that businessowners and other people directly on Willamette Street had special mailings,meetings,andsurveys withdoor-to-doorcanvasing. Why was this same courtesy not done for the non-WillametteStreetresidents that arein the Special Area zone, some of whom you are rezoning their houses to apartment/condominiums up to 7 stories? So, thecity hasgottensome Willamette Streetbusiness owners\[through SouthtowneBusiness Association\] and certainly Cascade Manorinvolved intheproject early on. You have also done a great job getting the community activists involved (mostof whichlive on the other side of College Hill or other places nowhere neartheaffectedarea). Butyou did NOT get the actual residentsinvolved, which is why there are somanypeople – the actual residents – upset. BillRandall ofthe Planning Commission at the 2015 September 18 th Page 1 of 3 09/19/2016 City Club forum seemed to think thatnotices inneighborhood association newsletters and the Register Guard should have been enough. It was not. Friendly Area Neighbors was heavily involved in the early planning, and there were informational articles in the newsletter.But the geographic extent and density kept morphing fromthe first article in 2010 to the present. That alone would cause confusion. And in an April 2012 Friendly Area Newsletter article by Patricia Taylor (then the planner in charge of South Willamette), she answered this question: “ Decisionsabout a planforthedistrictwillultimatelybemadebytheCityCouncil.Nochangeswill be madetotheplanfortheareawithout a publicprocessandnoticebeingsenttopeopleinthe if areaofproposedchanges.Forinstance,a zonechangewereproposed,allownersand occupantsofpropertieswithin a legallyproscribeddistance(500feet) wouldbenotifiedbymail. ” The emphasis on the “if” is mine.But it highlights that a potentialzoning change was downplayed and not a done-deal at that time. It seems that Southeast Neighbors, where my house is located, wasn’t involved at all until the 2014 summer picnic.How many residentsinand within 500 feet of the SW-SAZ attend this picnic? My guess would be 4 at most. The 2014 “public outreach” of the parklet at Arriving By Bike as an effective tool for contacting the residents was a joke. I remember driving by and seeing what I thought was a sale at Arriving By Bike. There was a blackboard with chalk writing that turnsout includedEugene Planning.Therewere nocitylogosthat could be seen when driving by, so no way to know that the citywas about to unleash a massiverezoning ofmyneighborhood. So the firstreal notice thatanyone in the residential areas received was the notice of the Open House prior to the Planning Commission hearing. (And some people say that they did not even receive this.) Page 2 of 3 09/19/2016 All of this is why I along with a lotof other people were asking to suspend the South Willamette Special Area Zone adoption process, and have a neighborhood driven refinement plan, to do further study with all stakeholders, with actual neighbors who live in an near the SW-SAZ included in a planning. These neighbors should live in or within 500 feet of the zone, not just be members of neighborhood associations that go to Chambers to the west, Agate Street to the east, or the urbangrowth boundary to the south. It needs to include the actual people wholive here. Please include this letter in the public record as part of the public testimony for the South Willamette area. Sincerely, JoyceEaton Page 3 of 3 09/19/2016 From Danika Esden-Tempski 9/20/16 Dear Mayor, City Council, City Manager & Planning Staff, I wantedto submit my writtentestimony in favorof supporting a community driven Refinement Planprocesswith the Brown/Clark Initiative. A refinement plan needs to be the foundation for any future changes tomy neighborhood, in order for the area to grow in a way that makes sense and remains sustainable, livable and walkable. So that we preserve the greenspaces andnatural character of the area. The changes made to Willamette Street with the new re-stripping have significantly impacted my home. The traffic being diverted from Willamette Street onto West 29th Avenue is significantly more dense and noisy than it was previously. The car traffic throughout a normal day remains in a constant state of rush hour with hurried people driving well over the 30 mphspeedlimit, more toward 45 miles per hour. This is unacceptable, I opposed the re-strippingbecause this was a clear outcome of the road narrowing along South Willamette Street. It was apparent that making the changewould not in any way reduce the traffic but would redistribute it to be the burden of the neighborhood residents to bear the significant noise and pollution increase along their streets. There has not been an uptick in the number of people riding bikes through the area. This is a select community of individuals and their numbers are in the great minority compared to the amount of auto traffic present. The city needs to enforce the speed limit in this area with a police officer ticketing people not driving the posted speed for the area. It is unreasonable for the residents to have to listen to the highway likedinof trafficnoise because people know they cango well over the speed limit without cause for caution. I think a speed limit sign needs to be posted on West 29th Ave before Lincoln St and off Willamette St so that when people drive down the street towards Market of Choice or when they drive from Willamette Street towards Lincoln St, they will be aware of whatthe speedlimit is. Please address the issue ofregulating traffic speed throughout South Eugene. I would also like to suggest that I think Willamette Street would be betterserved if trees wereplantedalong the sidewalks instead of having the bike lanes. Having a tree lined street wouldhelp significantly to beautify the area,but I also think it would naturally helpslow down the traffic. Studies have show this to be true. The trees would help clean the air along the transit corridor and I think that it would encourage people to walk along the sidewalks. I presently don’t have an issue walking down Willamette St or through any of the streets of South Eugene. I walk avidly and have never had an issue with walking down the sidewalks of 29th Ave or Willamette St. A month ago, my neighbors dog washit by a car on West 29th Ave, it was a gruesome, horrible scene, because the traffic would not stop and the dog was hit multiple times. I was shocked how poorly the drivers behaved in this situation just because they were so frustrated with the congestion, they had no patience to slow down. The increased congestion along West 29th Ave is unsafe for themany small children that live along my street. The majority of the residents on Charnelton St off West 29th Ave are now young families with very small children. The increase in traffic and the aggressive nature of it concerns me for the people with these little kids. Additionally, inorder for this area to remain livable, new buildings must provide appropriate parking spaces for the allotted amount of housing. It is not reasonable to expect the neighborhood street to accommodate all the cars that go with the residents of a new building development. Also, I support the development of C2 commercially zoned properties for housing development. This would distribute the burden of Eugene’s increased population into areas thatarevery scarcelypopulated with people. Finally, I want to express that there is a reason I do not live in Portland, I don’t want Eugene tobecome as dense with infill nor havethe loss of affordable housing. One of the main things about Eugene that makes it so beautifulis its abundance of green space and its housing character, these are important qualities to preserve. This natural beauty is what defines this town and itsimportant thatwe protect it, not ruin it with over building. That is why I support a community driven Refinement Plan and I support the Brown/Clark Initiative. Please placemy letter in the public record. Thank you, Danika Esden-Tempski 2909 Charnelton Street Eugene, Oregon 97405 TO: Mayor Kitty Piercy and Eugene City Councilors; City Manager and Planning Staff (ƭƚǒƷŷǞźƌƌğƒĻƷƷĻ @ ĭź.ĻǒŭĻƓĻ.or.us) FROM: Christine L. Sundt, 20 W 31 Avenue, Eugene OR (Ward 2) st Forum, September 19, 2016, South Eugene High School Cafeteria DATE: September 20, 2016 My public testimony text is attached along with the CC&R documents mentioned. Also attached are signatures from a sampling of our neighbors within the four SWN subdivisions who were eager to support my statement. These were gathered informally rather than through a systematic door-to-door campaign. Please accept this file for the public record regarding rezoning or redevelopment of the South Willamette area. Thank you. While the South Willamette Special Area Zone (SW-SAZ) was under review by the Eugene City Council, several neighbors attending South Willamette Neighbors meetings inquired about CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) that they knew existed for their properties. Several of us followed through with further research and discovered that indeed, within the boundaries of the proposed plan, four subdivisions were still actively covered by CC&Rs: Plummer Addition, Crestview Addition, Replat Block 3 Amended Plat of Rosedale, and Second Rosedale Addition. (Copies of those documents are appended to this letter with a transcript of my Guest Viewpoint published in the wĻŭźƭƷĻƩΏ DǒğƩķ in May 2016.) We have since engaged specialist land use attorneys, Zack Mittge and Liam Sherlock of Hutchinson Cox, to review said documents and to provide advice on their effective enforcement. We were informed by them in writing that by individual property owners (except the racially restrictive covenants that violated the Fair Housing Act) and not just by a HOA \[home owners association\] (assuming one even still exists). We have good caselaw to back : something proposed or happening in violation of the CC&Rs then you as a property owner can individually or in tandem with other interested or outraged property owners file an action in Lane County Circuit Court for declaratory and injunctive relief and breach of CC&R, to stop the development. We have filed such actions and they are relatively With this advice, residents within these subdivisions hereby notify all interested parties that property owners in the four South Willamette subdivisions governed by CC&Rs are prepared to enforce their rights with legal action when and if necessary. September 19, 2016 - Christine L. Sundt, owner/resident of 20 W 31 st Avenue; this property is jointly owned by my husband Richard A. Sundt. Please enter this testimony into the public record regarding any rezoning or redevelopment action initiated by the City of Eugene in the South Willamette area. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, & RESTRICTIONS (CC&Rs) Within the South Willamette Special Area Zone APRIL 8, 2016 SOUTH WILLAMETTE NEIGHBORS Swneugene.org 1 1MSWSAZ(SW-SAZ) AP OF THE OUTH ILLAMETTE PECIAL REA ONE 2 2LSWS OCATIONS OF SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE OUTH ILLAMETTE PECIAL AZCC&R REA ONE WITH ONGOING S 3 3PA LUMMER DDITION Tax Map 18030641 Recorded: August 3, 1939 Record No. 574 198 {ǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ /ƚƓķźƷźƚƓƭͲ /ƚǝĻƓğƓƷƭͲ ε wĻƭƷƩźĭƷźƚƓƭʹ 1.Excepting lots designated (highlighted in yellow) for commercial use (2, 3 6, 7, 10 of block 2 & 2, 3, 6, 7 of block 3) 2.Tve in appearance and in keeping with other structures on said 3. closer than 30 feet from the front lot line, or nearer than 3 feet to any side lot line. Residences built facing the long way of corner lots shall be set back from the property line not less than 15 4.- 5.hall in no wise affect 6. land and unless specifically exempted that all of said lots with the exceptions of the ones excepted from said restrictions shall be sold subject to the restrictions above referred to and the said restrictions are hereby made a charge upon said real property, save and except only as the restrictions are specif 4 4CA RESTVIEW DDITION Tax Map 18030711 Recorded: August 16, 1960 Record No. 422 231 & 232 {ǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ /ƚƓķźƷźƚƓƭͲ /ƚǝĻƓğƓƷƭͲ ε wĻƭƷƩźĭƷźƚƓƭʹ 1. area of less than eight hundred (800) square feet, exclusive of open porches and attached 2. 3.age or other outbuilding erected in said subdivision 4. after the construct 5. or leases of any or all of said lots in said subdivision, and all persons claiming by, through or 6.or persons shall violate any of the covenants, conditions or restrictions herein set forth, any other person or persons owning any real property situated in said subdivision shall have the right to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person violating or attempting to violate any such covenant or restriction, either to prevent him or them from so 7.s by judgement or court order shall in no wise affect any of the other provisions herein, which shall remain in full force 5 5RB3APR EPLAT LOCK MENDED LAT OF OSEDALE Tax Maps 18030711, 18030712, 18030714 Recorded: May 25, 1940 Record No. 202 596 {ǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ /ƚƓķźƷźƚƓƭͲ /ƚǝĻƓğƓƷƭͲ ε wĻƭƷƩźĭƷźƚƓƭʹ 1. than one detached single family dwelling or one semi-detached family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height and a private garage for not more than 3 cars and fuel storage building and tool houses. Said fuel storage building and tool houses shall not exceed 12 feet by 14 feet in floor space and shall be placed not closer than 40 feet to the front line of the building 2. line, nor nearer than 15 feet to any side street line. 3.t 4. less than 5000 square feet nor a width of less than 55 feet at the front building setbac 5. 6.ing erected in the tract shall at any time be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall" any structure of a 7.-story open porches and garages, shall be not less than 800 square feet in the case of a one story structure not less than 500 8. maintena 9. external design and location thereof have been approved in writing by the neighborhood committee which shall be appointed or elected by the owner or owners of a majority of the lots which are subject to covenants herein set forth: Provided, however, that if such committee fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within 30 days after such plans have been submitted to it or if no suit to enjoin the erection of such building or the making of such alterations, has been commenced prior to the complaint thereof, such approval will not be 10. persons claiming under them until January 1, 1965 at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive period of 10 years unless by a vote of the majority of the then owners of the lots it is agreed to change the said covenants in whole or 11. herein it shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning any real property situated in said development or subdivision to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant and either to prevent 12.venants by judgment or court order shall in no wise affect 6 6PSRA LAT OF ECOND OSEDALE DDITION Tax Map 18030714 Recorded: July 15, 1946 Record No. 327 132-134 {ǒƒƒğƩǤ ƚŅ /ƚƓķźƷźƚƓƭͲ /ƚǝĻƓğƓƷƭͲ ε wĻƭƷƩźĭƷźƚƓƭʹ 1.Excepting the blocks and lots enumerated and highlighted in yellow (Lots 1 & 2 of Block 1; Lot 1 of Block 2; Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Block 8; Lot 9 of Block 3; all of Block 4, Lots 9 and 10 of Block 5, Lot 9 of Block 11), these restrictions apply to all other properties. 2.d or permitted to remain on any building plot other than one detached single family dwelling or one semi-detached family dwelling not to exceed two stories in height and a private garage for not more than 3 cars and fuel storage building and tool houses. Said fuel storage building and tool houses shall not exceed 12 feet by 14 feet in 3. 4. line, 5. 6. 7.ted in the tract shall at any time be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall" any structure of a temporary character be used as a permanent residence; however, a trailer, garage, barn, or other outbuilding or partially completed residence may be used temporarily for not to exceed twenty-four (24) months as a residence, but in no case for a period of time longer than twenty- four (24) months. 7 8.-story open porches and garages, shall be not less than 800 square feet in the case of a one story structure not less than 500 9. 10.uilding shall be erected, place or altered on any building plot in this subdivision until the external design and location thereof have been approved in writing by the neighborhood committee which shall be appointed or elected by the owner or owners of a majority of the lots which are subject to covenants herein set forth: Provided, however, that if such committee fails to approve or disapprove such design and location within 30 days after such plans have been submitted to it or if no suit to enjoin the erection of such building or the making of such alterations, has been commenced prior to the complaint thereof, such approval will not be 11. persons claiming under them until January 1, 1965 at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive period of 10 years unless by a vote of the majority of the 12.If the parties hereto, or any of them, or their heirs or assigns shall violate any of the covenants herein it shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning any real property situated in said development or subdivision to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenant and either to prevent 13.judgment or court order shall in no wise affect 8 7CC&R DOCUMENTS PlummerAddition--pages10-11 CrestviewAddition--pages12-14 ReplatBlock3AmendedPlatofRosedale--pages15-16 SecondRosedaleAddition--pages17-20 9 10 11 12 CRESTVIEWADDITION 13 CRESTVIEWADDITION 14 REPLATBLOCK3 AMENDEDPLATOF ROSEDALE 16 17 SECONDROSEDALEADDITION (CONTINUED) 18 (CONTINUED) SECONDROSEDALEADDITION 19 (CONTINUED) SECONDROSEDALEADDITION 20 From Randy Prince 09/21/2016 4® - ª¤ 0®²²¨¡«¤ &´­£¨­¦ ®¥ .¤¢¤²² ±¸ )­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ &®±¬   #¨³¨¹¤­ 0« ­­¨­¦ 4¤ ¬  ­£ ¶±¨³¤   2¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ 0« ­ ¥®± 3®´³§ 7¨«« ¬¤³³¤ȁ To realize the goals that have been set city-wide, the Council should 1)Form a Citizen Planning Team 2) Select members of the team from residents, business owners and property owners in the area, 3) Write an official Refinement Plan to guide land use and 4) If there is agreement on the “20 minute neighborhood” concept, use that to collect support for a Local Improvement District or Urban Renewal District that can pay for the necessary public infrastructure. Amazon Neighbors like myself are most concerned with access and transportation issues in the South Willamette corridor; it is our business district and we are close enough to be considered part of the “twenty minute neighborhood”. Residents of our neighborhood can reach the area in about ten minutes by bike, in as little as five minutes by car. Many can walk there in about 15 minutes. The South Willamette area currently needs many transportation improvements to permit a more pedestrian and bike oriented environment. It will be especially important if additional multi-family housing is built there to increase density and serve city-wide land use goals. --Streets will need to be modified and deteriorating pavement and curbs will need to be replaced. --Bikeways will need to be installed and enhanced where they already exist. --Motorists need a public parking lot or structure where they can park without having to move their vehicle each time they shop at a different store on the street. --Public transit will turnouts and shelters, perhaps for streetcars or EmX, or just for frequent service by normal bus service on the street. --Sidewalks need to be widened to fit the needs of a pedestrian-friendly business district. --Utility service lines need to be relocated or buried to permit adequate sidewalks and minimize the reconfiguration of auto parking and entryways required when walkways are widened. There are other public improvements beyond transportation that a successful 20 minute neighborhood will require for example pocket parks, signage and attractive lighting for streets and public areas. &´­£¨­¦ ®¥ 4± ­²¯®±³ ³¨®­ )¬¯±®µ¤¬¤­³² § ² ¡¤¤­ ­¤¦«¤¢³¤£Ǿ -504% 3´¡²¨£¨¤² 7¨«« .®³ $® 4§ ³ *®¡ȅ The failure to consider transportation improvements was a key defect of the SW-SAZ. It was permitted by use of the MMA district concept, which allows planning for building code and zoning change without significant transportation planning. This was in accord with the balkanization of the city government—Planning & Development takes care of buildings, Public Works the streets—but it does not do what’s needed to transform a strip-mall environment into a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood.It will not build a Pearl District or revitalize an undeveloped transit corridor. Investors in new private developments want assurance that public improvements are in place or will be put in place when they finance projects, at least if they are to invest in anything other than the current strip-mall status quo. You can’t just squirrel money away from various semi-hidden budget sources like you were building a new city hall—it’s not certain financing and there’s not enough money. You can’t just take what special grants or surpluses come into different city departments, that doesn’t accord withcarrying a holistic plan for a neighborhood. You can’t just count on a influential politicians to get federal funding for a few showcase projects—the “Bridge to Nowhere” approach is costly but never gets the job done quickly or completely. When Portlanders wanted a streetcar, they abandoned the approach used for the West Side Max Line, which was to get big money from the federal government and then spend huge amounts on planning and side projects and spend years doing it.They focused on local support for something that created local benefits. Using the System Development Charges individual developments pay won’t work its too uncertain when the money comes in, and the City administration has been very clear they don’t want much incoming SDC money to be devoted to needs in the immediate vicinity of new projects. They prefer to keep it available for city-wide needs. What will work is to use the established mechanisms for funding improvements in a district, which recapture public spending through assessments on those who have benefitted. Local Improvement Districts can be set up, usually they apply to business and commercial properties. Urban Renewal Districts use tax increment financing. The specific methods of charging or collecting the funds may not be perfect, but they allow financing of public improvements by those who get specific financial benefit, that’s what important. 4® ¤²³ ¡«¨²§ ¯±®¯¤± ¥¨­ ­¢¨­¦ ®¥ ¨­¥± ²³±´¢³´±¤Ǿ ¥®±¬   #¨³¨¹¤­ 0« ­­¨­¦ 4¤ ¬  ­£ ¶±¨³¤   2¤¥¨­¤¬¤­³ 0« ­ Local Improvement Districts and Urban Renewal Districts must gain public support to be established. Recent history tells us the influence of the Council and Manager is not sufficient to win enough support.The Citizen Planning approach offers the only chance to get the support, and establish an adequate financing mechanism for public improvements in South Willamette, and would be an approach that could be used in other transportation corridors. Randy Prince 2599 Onyx St PO Box 927, Eugene