Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Meeting Location: Phone: 541-682-5377 Sloat Room – Atrium Building https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official 99 West 10th Avenue The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. Feel free to come and go as you please at any of the meetings. This meeting location is wheelchair-accessible. For the hearing impaired, FM assistive-listening devices are available, or an interpreter can be provided with 48 hours’ notice. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at (541) 682-5481. WEDNESDAY, MAY 1st, 2019 (5:00 p.m.) I. PUBLIC HEARING: Simons Investment Prop LLC (Z 19-1) Location: 10 lots in an area bounded by West 4th Avenue (North), Charnelton Street (East), West 5th Avenue (South), Washington Street (West) Request: Zone Change from S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone with /SR Site Review overlay to S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone (Removal of /SR Site Review overlay zone) Applicant: Simons Investment Prop LLC / CSA Oregon LLC Representative: Bishow Consulting – Teresa Bishow Lead City Staff: Rodney Bohner, Assistant Planner Telephone: (541) 682-5437 E-mail: RBohner@eugene-or.gov Public Hearing Format: 1. Staff introduction/presentation 2. Public testimony from applicant and others in support of application. 3. Comments or questions from interested persons who neither are proponents nor opponents of the proposal (neutral). 4. Public testimony from those in opposition to application. 5. Staff response to testimony. 6. Questions from Hearings Official. 7. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 8. Closing of public hearing. The Hearings Official will not make a decision at this hearing. The Eugene Code requires that a written decision must be made within 15 days of close of the public comment period. To be notified of the Hearings Official’s decision, fill out a request form at the public hearing or contact the lead City staff as noted above. The decision will also be posted at https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official.  Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541-682-5377 Fax: 541-682-5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning ZONE CHANGE STAFF REPORT File Name (Number): Simons Investment (Z 19-1) Applicant: Simons Investment Prop LLC and CSA Oregon LLC; 215 West 5th Avenue, Eugene OR 97401 Applicant’s Representative: Teresa Bishow, AICP; Bishow Consulting LLC; P.O. Box 50721, Eugene OR 97405 Applicant’s Request: Zone change from S-W/SR Special Whiteaker with Site Review Overlay to S-W Special Whiteaker (removal of /SR Site Review Overlay) Subject Property: Address: See Attachment A – Subject Property Table Assessor’s Map/Tax Lot: See Attachment A – Subject Property Table Size: Approximately 3.67 acres total Location/Zoning: 10 tax lots in an area bounded by West 4th Avenue to the north, Charnelton Street to the east, West 5th Avenue to the south, and Washington Street to the west (see Attachments B and C – Vicinity Map and Zoning Map) Relevant Dates: Application submitted on February 11, 2019; application deemed complete on March 11, 2019; public hearing scheduled for May 1, 2019 Lead City Staff: Rodney Bohner, Assistant Planner, Eugene Planning Division, Phone: (541) 682-5437 Purpose of Staff Report Staff reports provide community members an opportunity to learn more about the land use request and to review staff analysis of the application. Staff reports are available seven days prior to the public hearing (see EC 9.7320). The staff report provides only preliminary recommendations, and information. The Hearings Official will also consider additional public testimony and other materials presented at the public hearing before making a decision on the application. The Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is generally made within Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 1 15 days following close of the public record, following the public hearing (see EC 9.7330). For reference, the quasi-judicial hearing procedures applicable to this request are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. How Does Zoning Work? The Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) is part of the City’s comprehensive plan. The Metro Plan helps to guide land use and zoning decisions. It includes long-range policy direction for land use planning and legislative decision-making, as well as guidance for parcel-specific land use decisions such as this zone change request. In some areas, refinement plans provide additional policies and land use designation maps to further guide land use decision-making in specific neighborhoods or geographic areas of the City. Another component of the City’s comprehensive plan is the Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan. It provides goals and policies to help guide the City in updating the Eugene Code and other regulatory documents, programs and planning projects. Unlike the Metro Plan or refinement plans, the Envision Eugene policies are not intended to be used in determining approval or denial of land use applications, like a zone change, unless such direction is stated in the policy. In the context of a zone change application, consistency with the applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and any applicable adopted refinement plans for the area of the request is fundamental to the decision-making process. More than one zone category may carry out a particular land use designation, and the relevant policy direction helps determine what the zoning should be. In other cases, the land use designation and policy direction may be so specific that only one zone or overlay zone can correctly establish particular restrictions, development standards or process. In a nutshell, zoning specifies the allowed uses for a piece of land, and what standards will apply at the time of development (e.g. height, setbacks, etc.). Background and Present Request In 1948, the Eugene City Council enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance that applied to all property within the City limits. At that time, large portions of the area known as the Whiteaker neighborhood were already developed with a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses. When the City Council adopted the 1978 Whiteaker Plan, the concept of mixed-use zoning for portions of the Whiteaker neighborhood was introduced. In June 1992, the Eugene Planning Commission approved a work program to update the 1978 Whiteaker Refinement Plan. Two years later, on August 1, 1994 the Eugene City Council conducted a work session on the Whiteaker Plan and related implementation actions. The Council approved amendments to the May 1994 Draft Whiteaker Plan affecting the use of site review and the site review trigger mechanism. The City Council also adopted an ordinance creating the MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use zoning district. Lastly, the City Council also approved the Whiteaker Plan Implementation Zone Changes, including changes in zoning of certain tax lots within the Skinner Butte Mixed Use Area from the existing zoning to MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use and the attachment of /SR Site Review subdistrict (overlay) zoning to all property proposed for MU-W zoning (see Attachment E – Final Order of Eugene City Council, Whiteaker Plan Implementation Changes in Zoning Districts: Skinner Butte Mixed Use Area Z 93-29, Z 93- Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 2 30, Z 93-31). In February of 2001, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 20224, which renamed and reclassified several zones. As an example, the RA Suburban Residential District was replaced with the R-1 Low Density Residential zone. The list of reclassifications and corresponding zone titles is available at EC 9.1045. That reclassification process included renaming MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use District to S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone. The subject property consists of 10 tax lots containing a total of approximately 3.67 acres. The subject properties are located in the Whitaker neighborhood in a portion of the area on the north side of West 5th Avenue between Charnelton Street and Washington Street. The subject properties are currently zoned for S-W/SR Special Whiteaker Area Zone with a Site Review Zoning Overlay and consist of a mix of land uses. Referrals/Public Notice Public notice of the subject application was mailed on April 1, 2019 and posted consistent with the requirements of EC 9.7315 Public Hearing Notice. The Planning Division also provided information concerning the application to other appropriate City departments, public agencies, service providers, and the affected neighborhood group. Notice of the proposed zone change was received by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on March 25, 2019. All referral comments received by the Planning Division on this application are included in the application file for reference. The substance of any relevant referral comments is addressed in the context of applicable approval criteria and standards in the following evaluation. As of the publication of this report, staff have received three phone inquiries into the nature of the zone change. Additionally, staff have received three submissions of written testimony. Comments were received from Cathy Feely and Den Ramsey of the Whiteaker Community Council. Staff also received an email in response to Mr. Ramsey’s testimony from C.B Simons. The written comments received prior to publication of this staff report are included as Attachment D and will be provided to the Hearings Official for consideration as part of the record, along with any additional written testimony received before close of the record following the public hearing. Zone Change Evaluation The Hearings Official will review the application for a zone change and consider relevant evidence and testimony as to whether the proposed change is consistent with the criteria required for approval, shown below in bold typeface. Staff’s findings in response to each of the criteria are provided below, to assist the Hearings Official in making a decision on the zone change request. EC 9.8865(1): The proposed change is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan. The written text of the Metro Plan shall take precedence over the Metro Plan diagram where apparent conflicts or inconsistencies exist. Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 3 All of the subject properties are designated as Mixed Use on the Metro Plan land use diagram. The Metro Plan describes the Mixed-Use designation as follows: “Mixed Use: This category represents areas where more than one use might be appropriate, usually as determined by refinement plans on the local level. (For example, the Whiteaker Refinement Plan includes several areas where a mix of compatible uses, based in part on existing development, are designated.) In the absence of a refinement plan, the underlying plan designation shall determine the predominant land use.” The applicant’s request does not propose a change in the base zone—S-W Whitaker Special Area Zone—which fulfills the intent of the Metro Plan Mixed Use designation. The purpose of the existing S-W Special Whiteaker Special Area Zone is to “encourage vitality of the area for employment and industrial, institutional, and commercial uses while also allowing a mix of residential dwellings.” The S-W, Whiteaker Special Area Zone will implement the Metro Plan Mixed Use designation of the subject property. While none of the Metro Plan policies cited in the applicant’s narrative appear to constitute approval criteria for the proposed zone change (Policies A. 13, A.22 and B.29), they nonetheless provide general support to the base zone as relevant to the applicant’s requested zone change. there appear to be no other Metro Plan policies that would serve as relevant provisions or mandatory approval criteria related to the applicant’s request for removal of the /SR Site Review overlay zoning. The applicant’s narrative argues that the cost of a Site Review application, which is required for new construction or additions on lots with the /SR overlay, runs counter to Envision Eugene Comprehensive Plan policy 3.35 Neighborhood vitality. That policy seeks to “encourage the preservation and creation of affordable neighborhood commercial space…”. The applicant states that the cost of a Site Review application decreases the affordability of commercial space. Staff point out that the aspirational policy does not constitute an approval criterion, particularly under this criterion as it relates to Metro Plan consistency. The Envision Eugene document specifically states, “policies will not be used in determining whether the City shall approve or deny individual land use development applications unless such direction is specifically state in the policy (Envision Eugene Comp Plan, pg. I-3). Furthermore, it is the relatively relaxed mixed-use standards of the S-W base zoning, which will be retained, that help to incentivize the retention and creation of new commercial space that otherwise may be unobtainable. Based on the available evidence, there are no provisions of the Metro Plan that appear to conflict or directly preclude the applicant’s request. EC 9.8865(2): The proposed zone change is consistent with applicable adopted refinement plans. In the event of inconsistencies between these plans and the Metro Plan, the Metro Plan controls. A portion of the subject properties are within the Eugene Downtown Plan area. This adopted refinement plan provides a broad policy basis for uses that will strengthen the economic vitality Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 4 of downtown, including new housing. However, it does not contain an adopted land use diagram. The applicant’s narrative cites two policies from this plan that appear relevant as general support for the requested zone change (Policy 3 on page 14, and Policy 1 on page 25), but neither constitute approval criteria for the proposed zone change. The subject properties are also located within the Whiteaker Plan boundary. As the related legislative history shows, this adopted refinement plan provides the policy basis for the City’s original imposition of the /SR overlay to the subject properties (and for its retention, contrary to the applicant’s zone change request). The /SR overlay intends to ensure compatibility among mixed land uses. Policy concerning the application of the /SR overlay in the Whiteaker Plan was clarified through the drafting and adoption (and subsequent amendments to) of the plan. REVIEW OF /SR SITE REVIEW OVERLAY – POLICY APPLICABILTY The Eugene City Council adopted five ordinances and thirteen orders in August 1994 in connection with land use decisions related to adoption of the Whiteaker Plan. These actions included adoption of Ordinance Nos. 19977 (Metro Plan changes), 19978 (Whiteaker Plan adoption), and 19979 (Eugene Code amendment adding MU-W zoning district), together with adoption of thirteen rezoning orders, Z 93-13 through Z 93-32, changing the zoning designations of properties consistent with the Metro Plan changes and the Whiteaker Plan designations. Eugene City Council, through Ordinance No. 19978 (see Attachment F) amended Policy 2 on page 32 of the Whiteaker Plan, clarifying and broadening the application of /SR Site Review specific to Mixed Use Zoning as follows: “***** Also apply Site Review to all properties zoned MU-Whiteaker Mixed Use *****” Furthermore, Ordinance No. 19978 also amended the language specific to the applicable Skinner Butte Mixed Use Area – Subarea 11, Policy 2 on page 49 [50] as follows: “***** Apply SR Site Review subdistrict zoning to all property zoned MU- W Whiteaker Mixed Use.” The Whiteaker Plan, amended through City Council Ordinance No. 19978, requires the attachment of /SR overlay zoning to all properties zoned MU-W Mixed Use District (S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone). The applicant’s narrative cites the Hearings Official’s determination in the zone change for Simons Oregon Investments (see City File #Z 18-7) as a precedent for removing the /SR overlay. In that decision, which involved rezoning the subject properties to S-W, Whiteaker Special Area Zone, the Hearings Official reasoned that the City could not require the attachment of the /SR overlay as part of the applicant’s request. It is important to note that this application involved a staff recommendation to add the /SR overlay to property being rezoned from I-2, Light-Medium Industrial zoned property, generally consisting of former railroad right of way (and as such, portions of the subject property were not clearly designated for Mixed Use in the refinement Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 5 plan). In that case, the subject property did not exist as MU-W during the zone changes by which the City implemented the directives of the Whiteaker Plan. On the other hand, the current application involves the removal of existing /SR overlay from properties in which the overlay was applied through City Council Ordinance implementing the adopted Whiteaker Plan. In that decision, relating to the difference between imposing the /SR overlay today versus the application in 1993, the Hearings Official found: “The Whiteaker Refinement Plan directs the city to “apply Site Review to all properties zoned MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use.” The language of Policy 2 indicates that this particular Refinement Plan policy is applicable whenever, and however, the MU-W Mixed Use Zone is applied to a particular property. The question here, however, is whether that policy applies to the applicant’s request to rezone the subject property to the S-W Whiteaker Special Area zone.” **** “The staff is correct that Policy 2 required the City Council to apply the /SR Site Review Overlay to all properties in the MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use zone and, in fact, the refinement plan note confirms that the City Council exercised that policy directive when it adopted the Whiteaker Plan and implemented Policy 2 by applying the /SR Site Review Overlay to a specified list of tax lots in the MU Mixed Use District. The subject property was not among the list of tax lots to which the /SR Site Review Overlay was applied at that time.” RECLASSIFICATION OF MU-W TO S-W The applicant raises issue with what is described in the application materials as a discrepancy between code language policies identifying the MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use District and the S- W Whiteaker Special Area Zone. Staff note that the changes adopted in the City’s Land Use Code Update (LUCU, 2002) reclassified the MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use District to S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone (EC Table 9.1045). City Council did not initiate a zone change process or ever adopt an ordinance re-zoning the MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use District, and instead chose to approve the changes through a legislative code amendment process. As demonstrated in EC Table 9.1045, the amendment process has reclassified numerous zones. City Council Ordinance No. 20224, repealed Ordinance No. 19979 (Whiteaker MU-R District) and reclassified MU-W Whiteaker Mixed Use District to S-W Whitaker Special Area Zone, utilizing a naming and abbreviation convention that provides consistency among other special area zones. S-W is not a new, different zone. S-W is a reclassified zone, per the land use code and the legislative intent expressed through its adoption by the City Council. City Council approved these amendments and the changes to MU-W zone during the reclassification were minor. The changes provided in the applicant’s materials compare the MU-W zone to current-day S-W zoning. Staff note that existing discrepancies between the two zones reflect wider land use code updates occurring over the approximately 18 years since the reclassification. Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 6 The legislative draft version of the Land Use Code Update from 1999 better demonstrates how MU-W was reclassified to S-W (see Attachment G - Land Use Code, November 1999 Draft). Demonstrating City Council’s intent in reclassifying the base MU-W zone and intent to preserve the /SR overlay is the December 10, 2001 Eugene City Council decision (see Attachment H – Ordinance No. 20237). In that decision, City Council approved a Whiteaker Plan Land Use Diagram revision and concurrent zone change from PL Public Land to S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone with /SR Site Review Overlay (City File #Z 01-21). In that case, the /SR overlay was recommended by staff and approved by City Council. Staff’s recommendation was based on similar policy direction from the Whiteaker Plan directing the application of /SR overlay to all property zoned MU-W. This example provides additional precedence and evidence of City Council’s intent to preserve the /SR overlay zone as applied to the S-W (MU-W) Whiteaker Special Area Zone. Because this 2001 zone change was processed concurrently with a refinement plan amendment, the intent of City Council in preserving and applying the /SR overlay is not left up to speculation. Ordinance 20237 demonstrates the applicability of /SR overlay policy language in 2001—policy language still applicable to new S-W zones today and until such time that a refinement plan amendment changes the text of the Whiteaker Plan. REMOVAL OF /SR OVERLAY Based on the available legislative history, and without a refinement plan amendment to change the text of the policies requiring the /SR overlay, staff believes it would be inconsistent with the expressed intent of the City’s governing body (the Eugene City Council) for the Hearings Official to approve the removal of the /SR overlay from the subject properties according to applicant’s request. It would not only be inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Whiteaker Plan, and therefore violate the zone change approval criteria at EC 9.8865(2), it would circumvent Council’s legislative authority in changing the adopted policy direction in the plan. Concerning the removal of the /SR Overlay, the Whiteaker Plan provides that “the Eugene Planning Commission shall consider removing site review requirements, where appropriate, when city-wide design standards have been adopted by the City Council.” The applicant describes additional development standards, some of which the applicant describes on pages 9- 11 of the written narrative, added through subsequent City ordinances. However, it seems clear that the intent of the Whiteaker Plan provision for removal of the overlay was through legislative process (such as through a Type IV or Type V application) to remove the /SR overlay, not the subject Type III application. In fact, arguments regarding Site Review’s service to the public’s interest (page 9 – Applicant’s Written Narrative) are exactly the consideration afforded through such a legislative process. To this end, the City is currently undertaking a Type V application to amend the Whiteaker Plan, specific to the /SR overlay, among others, connected to the approval of a City-initiated package of related land use applications necessary to implement an updated concept plan for redevelopment of the Downtown Riverfront (see Attachment I – Downtown Riverfront Application Narrative, Section 3.2 Refinement Plan Amendments). The inclusion of specific language to exempt S-DR Downtown Riverfront properties is further evidence of staff’s Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 7 interpretation that the relevant policies require the retention of the /SR overlay for S-W zoned property. Based on the available evidence and findings above, the applicant’s request is inconsistent with the applicable, adopted Whiteaker Plan. EC 9.8865(3): The uses and density that will be allowed by the proposed zoning in the location of the proposed change can be served through the orderly extension of key urban facilities and services. Key urban facilities and services are defined in the Metro Plan as: wastewater service, stormwater service, transportation, water service, fire and emergency medical services, police protection, City- wide parks and recreation programs, electric service, land use controls, communication facilities, and public schools on a district-wide basis (see Metro Plan page V-3). The applicant provides statements in its written narrative that detail the availability of each service listed above. To summarize, the site currently has the necessary services because it is located in a developed area with easily accessed wastewater and water service. Public Works referral comments, which are available in the application file for reference, confirm that wastewater, stormwater, and streets can serve the subject property and compliance with specific standards will be ensured at the time of any future development. Based on these findings, and future permitting requirements, this criterion is met. EC 9.8865(4): The proposed zone change is consistent with the applicable siting requirements set out for the specific zone in: (o) EC 9.3905 S-W Whiteaker Special Area Zone Siting Requirements. In addition to the approval criteria at EC 9.8865 Zone Change Approval Criteria, the site must be planned for a special mix of uses in the Whiteaker Neighborhood Plan. As previously discussed, the Metro Plan and Whiteaker Plan provide the policy basis to support or deny the requested zone change. In addition, the Downtown Plan policies also generally support zoning regulations that encourage a mix of uses that will help revitalize the area. The /SR overlay does not have specific siting requirements listed as part of this of this criterion, but in the case of the subject request, the applicable policies in the Whiteaker Plan direct retention of the /SR overlay to the S-W zoned subject properties. EC 9.8865(5): In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(3), the property owner shall enter into a contractual arrangement with the City to ensure the area is maintained as a natural resource area for a minimum of 50 years. This criterion does not apply as the proposed zone change does not include the NR zone. Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 8 Transportation Planning Rule Evaluation Goal 12 Transportation of the Statewide Planning Goals, adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), must be specifically addressed as part of the requested zone change and in the context of Oregon Administrative Rules, as follows. As adopted, OAR 660-012-0060(1) states: (1) If an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation (including a zoning map) would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility, then the local government must put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule, unless the amendment is allowed under section (3),(9), or (10) of this rule. The applicant states that it qualifies for an exception under subsection (9), as its request is consistent with the comprehensive plan designation. (9) Notwithstanding section (1) of this rule, a local government may find that an amendment to a zoning map does not significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility if all of the following requirements are met. (a) The proposed zoning is consistent with the existing comprehensive plan map designation and the amendment does not change the plan map: (b) The local government has an acknowledged TSP and the proposed zoning is consistent with the TSP; and (c) The area subject to the amendment was not exempted from this rule at the time of an urban growth boundary amendment as permitted in OAR 660- 024-220(1)(d), or the area was exempted from this rule but the local government has a subsequently acknowledged TSP amendment that accounted for urbanization of the area. The City of Eugene’s adopted Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan (2035 TSP) serves as the City’s acknowledged local transportation system plan. “Chapter 3: Needs Assessment and Evaluation”, of the 2035 TSP provides: The needs assessment and resulting projects… that establish a transportation system adequate to meet the identified local transportation needs are based upon the land use designations established by the Metro Plan. Because the 2035 TSP is based on the Metro Plan land use designations, any zone allowed within the land use designation is consistent with both the Metro Plan and this 2035 TSP. The applicant correctly states that the zoning of the subject property is consistent with the Metro Plan, therefore the zoning of the subject property is consistent with 2035 TSP. As the applicant has not requested an amendment to the Metro Plan designation, and the Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 9 proposed zoning remains consistent with the Metro Plan designation, the zone change is allowed under OAR 660-012-0060(9) and OAR 660-012-0060(1) is satisfied. Based on these findings, the proposed zone change does not significantly affect a transportation facility for purposes of the TPR and therefore complies with the TPR. Staff Recommendation Consistent with the preceding findings of compliance with the zone change criteria at EC 9.8865, and based on all available information, staff recommends the Hearings Official deny the requested zone change to remove /SR Site Review Overlay Zone. Consistent with EC 9.7330, unless the applicant agrees to a longer time period, within 15 days following close of the public record, the Eugene Hearings Official shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny this Type III application. The decision shall be based upon and be accompanied by findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision, stating the facts relied upon in rendering a decision and explaining the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. Notice of the written decision will be mailed in accordance with EC 9.7335. Within 12 days of the date the decision is mailed, it may be appealed to the Eugene Planning Commission as set forth in EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. Attachments The application materials, and the entire application file, are available for review at the Eugene Planning Division offices and will also be made available for review at the public hearing. The Hearings Official will also receive a full set of application materials for review prior to the public hearing. Please note that the published staff report will only include Attachments A-D, however, copies can be provided at cost, or viewed on the City’s website at: https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/SearchApplicationDocuments?file=Z-19-0001 Attachment A: Subject Property Table Attachment B: Vicinity Map Attachment C: Zoning Map Attachment D: Public Testimony Attachment E: Final Order of Eugene City Council, Whiteaker Plan Implementation Changes in Zoning Districts: Skinner Butte Mixed Use Area Z 93-29, Z 93- 30, Z 93-31 Attachment F: Ordinance No. 19978 Attachment G: Land Use Code, November 1999 Draft (excerpt) Attachment H: Ordinance No. 20237 Attachment I: Downtown Riverfront Application Narrative For More Information Please contact Rodney Bohner, Assistant Planner, Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5437; or by e-mail, at: rbohner@eugene-or.gov Simons Investments Prop LLC (Z 19-1) April 2019 10 Z 19-1 Attachment A  ATTACHMENT B - VICINITY MAP Z 19-1 Attachment B EB I105 W 4TH AVE WASHINGTON ST W 4TH ALY LAWRENCE ST LINCOLN ST EB I105 ONRP CHARNELTON ST W 5TH AVE Subject Property W 5TH ALY W 6TH AV E UGB ´ Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to change, Subject Properties Feet and for general reference only. 0 100 200 400 Taxlots April 2019 Simons Investment (Z 19-1) Z 19-1 Attachment C Assessor's Map: 17-03-30-43 Tax Lots: 00800, 01100, 01200, 01300, 01400 Assessor's Map: 17-03-31-12 Tax Lots: 01400, 01800, 02000, 02200 Assessor's Map: 17-03-31-21 Tax Lot: 00500 Removal of the /SR Site Review overlay zone W 4th Ave ^ Lincoln St Lawrence St Charnelton St ^ ^ ^ W 4th Aly ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ W 5th Ave W 5th Aly Zoning /SR Overlay C-2 Community Commercial I-2 Light-Medium Industrial ´ S Special Area ^ Subject Site  Z 19-1 Attachment D BOHNER Rodney T From: Cathy Evans <earthleor@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 4:08 PM To: BOHNER Rodney T Subject: Simons Investments Hello, The request from Simons Investments to remove the site review overlay zone on their parcel along Washington Street is unacceptable to our Whiteaker community. We are being assaulted from all sides, from the Homes for Good project on the North end of Whiteaker to continual chipping away of properties inside the boundaries.. We absolutely do not want to remove any opportunity for public review or input. We are a small neighborhood and every project can have a big footprint in terms of public safety, traffic and livability. Please deny this request. Cathy Feely 119 N Adams Eugene, OR 97402 1  Z 19-1 Attachment D BOHNER Rodney T From: yesmar@efn.org Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2019 10:09 AM To: BOHNER Rodney T Subject: Opposition to application Rodney, The Whiteaker Community Council opposes the application cited here: https://pdd.eugene- or.gov/LandUse/ApplicationDetails?file=Z-19-1, and in fact we want to know why this application did not appear in your standard email announcements of zoning and/or development requests within our neighborhood? Our neighborhood association received zero notification of any kind, and we only learned of this through a neighbor who received a notice in the mail. Please explain that. After reading through the materials provided by the developer, we find their argument for removing Site Review from these properties both extremely thin, and opportunistic. Their claim that SR inhibits or in some way interferes with mixed use development is ridiculous. See page 6: "Site Review zoning overlay is a barrier to development..." Whiteaker has SR attached to its Special Whiteaker Zone for a reason, and that reason is clearly stated in planning ordinances: "... in order to improve or maintain the character, integrity, and harmonious development of an area or provide a safe, stable, efficient, and attractive on-site environment according to applicable plans, policies, goals, and ordinances adopted by the council..." In simple terms, SR is attached to the S-W overlay in order to prevent obnoxious mis-use of our mixed-use neighborhood, and the public process to ensure proper development by attaching SR to this zone was lengthy and correct. In addition, their letter from Carol Shrimer, page 27 of their application, regarding Site Review, is troubling. Please read it carefully. It was solicited by Teresa Bishow, consultant to Simons, from another consultant, Shirmer, complaining about the costs, time, and regulatory requirements of compliance with city codes. Shirmer states in her first paragraph that in none of her cases did the Site Review process result in any design changes, yet this is not the point. The point is that in many other cases the Site Review process did result in required design changes, and was put in place precisely to ensure that developments are appropriate and compatible. Her letter also states a very good reason to retain SR, and that is the LUBA appeal. Shirmer's complaint is an attempt to shield her industry from public scrutiny and responsibility, and this opportunistic ploy is even further evident in her last paragraph in which she states that the SR process provides no value to the surrounding neighborhood. The SR process is exactly intended to provide value to the surrounding neighborhood by preventing incompatible development. We have other problems with this application such as the attempt to use a successful land use appeal on another parcel as precedent for the current appeal, as well as their excessive argument that Metro overrides, such as their quote of Metro Plan A.13 and A.22. They wish to use a portion of these two policies, while ignoring other portions. They cannot reinterpret existing policy or codes. We have been aware for some years that Simons Investment Properties has purchased 27 separate lots across the boundary of Downtown and Whiteaker, with the intent of developing these into high- density apartment complexes. We do not believe this suits the character of that portion of Whiteaker neighborhood which already contains a variety of mixed-use business and residences. We believe that Simons' ultimate game is to build high density apartments on the three sites it wishes to remove 1  Z 19-1 Attachment D SR, and ultimately drive-out those other mixed-use property owners in order to further acquire and develop the remaining few properties it does not currently own in those blocks. For many reasons we oppose Simons application to have Site Review removed from the Special Whiteaker overlay zone, for their properties, or any others. Thank you, Den Ramsey Whiteaker Community Council 2  Z 19-1 Attachment D GEPPER Jeffrey A From: Cheryl <cheryl@cbsimons.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 1:56 PM To: GEPPER Jeffrey A Subject: Fwd: Simons Z19-1 Mr. Gepper: Mr. Bohner is out of the office and I want to make sure that this is included in the Agenda Packet. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Cheryl Begin forwarded message: From: Cheryl <cheryl@cbsimons.com> Subject: Simons Z19-1 Date: April 23, 2019 at 11:52:08 AM PDT To: BOHNER Rodney T <RBohner@eugene-or.gov> April 23, 2019 Eugene Hearings Official Eugene Planning Division 99 West 10th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Dear Mr. Bohner: As a property owner in the Whiteaker neighborhood for over 40 years we are proponents of the vision for the area enunciated by past mayor and resident of the neighborhood, Kitty Piercy. Our sense of that vision is to create and maintain an attractive, economically viable, culturally diverse, and self-sufficient neighborhood that produces tax revenues. As such we share Mr. Ramsey’s aversion to, “obnoxious mis-use of our mixed-use neighborhood”, and we trust that Mr. Ramsey can agree that our development record supports and advances Mayor Piercy’s vision. We do not now, nor do we anticipate, nor have we ever planned or contemplated building high- density housing. However, if such a development were proposed on Whiteaker Neighborhood property properly zoned for that use, we would not share Mr. Ramsey’s apparent opposition to creation of sorely needed housing opportunities in the neighborhood. We are puzzled by Mr. Ramsey’s adversarial and pejorative tone, and it is hard to understand 1  Z 19-1 Attachment D why Mr. Ramsey would claim to be aware of our intentions when he has never attempted to contact us and clearly is unfamiliar with our developments. Quite contrary to any intent to re- develop into the pejorative “obnoxious mis-use” as implied by Mr. Ramsey, we continue to invest to improve and renovate our existing business properties in a manner that promotes the vision we share with Ms. Piercy. There is no motivation for us to do otherwise. Respectfully submitted, C.B. Simons by cc 2