Hearings Official Public Hearings

AGENDA Phone: 541-682-5481 Meeting Location: www.eugene-or.gov/406/hearings-official Virtual Meeting (Via Zoom) The Eugene Hearings Official welcomes your interest in these agenda items. The Permit and Information Center (PIC) is open 12:00pm—4:00pm, Monday through Friday. Information about online or other options for access and participation is available on the next page of this agenda. For the hearing impaired, assistive-listening devices or an interpreter can be provided with 72- hour notice prior to the meeting. Spanish-language interpretation may also be provided with 72- hour notice. These services may not be available during the meeting but may occur as a follow up service. To arrange for these services, contact the Planning Division at 541-682-5675. WEDNESDAY, August 3, 2022 – Public Hearing 5:00 pm Hearing Official: Virginia Gustafson Lucker I. PUBLIC HEARING: SOUTH WILLAMETTE (Z 22-4) Description: Zone Change request to change zoning from Low-Density Residential (R-1) to Medium-Density Residential (R-2) File Name (#): SOUTH WILLAMETTE (Z 22-4) Location: 3015 & 3031 Willamette Street Assessor’s Map / Tax Lots: 18-03-07-11 / 13900 & 16800 Lead City Staff: Reid Verner, Senior Planner, 541-682-5534, RVerner@eugene-or.gov II. APPEAL PUBLIC HEARING: HILL RANDALL LLC (VEI 22-1) Description: Appeal of the Eugene Planning Director's decision denying a request to vacate (remove) an Improved Public Pedestrian/Bicycle Easement on the property between River Road and Stephens Drive at 785 River Road. File Name (#): HILL RANDALL LLC (VEI 22-1) Location: 785 River Road Assessor’s Map / Tax Lots: 17-04-24-42 / 02600 Appellant: William A. Randall, Hill/Randall LLC Lead City Staff: Nick Gioello, Associate Planner, 541-682-5453, NGioello@eugene- or.gov Page 1 of 56 PUBLIC HEARING FORMAT 1. Staff introduction/presentation 2. Public testimony from applicant. 3. Testimony from the public. Due to the virtual meeting platform, the order of speakers will be based on order that persons request to speak (raise virtual hand), as opposed to the order specified under EC 9.7625. For this reason, each person providing comment will be asked to state whether they are in support, neutral, or in opposition to the application. 4. Staff response to testimony. 5. Questions from Hearings Official. 6. Rebuttal testimony from applicant. 7. 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, state your name and address during the public testimony portion of the public hearing or contact the lead City staff noted above. The decision will also be posted at https://www.eugene-or.gov/406/Hearings-Official. HOW TO ACCESS THE MEETING To be able to participate in Public Comment join using one of the two following options: 1. Join on your computer, tablet or smartphone Visit: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/j/89675214646 Sign up to speak by clicking once on the “raise hand” icon 2. Join on your phone Dial one of the below numbers and enter the Webinar ID: 896 7521 4646 +1 833-548-0276 (Toll Free); or +1 833-548-0282 (Toll Free); or +1 877-853-5257 (Toll Free); or +1 888-475-4499 (Toll Free); For higher quality, dial a number based on your current location. International numbers available: https://eugene-or-gov.zoom.us/u/kBMeRzxTK Sign up to speak by dialing *9 (Star-9) Page 2 of 56  The Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 | Fax: 541.682.5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning PUBLIC HEARING STAFF REPORT Zone Change File Name (Number): South Willamette (Z 22-4) Owner/Applicant: Jason Lear, Civic Form, LLC Applicant’s Representative: Zach Galloway, AICP, TBG Architects + Planners Lead City Staff: Reid Verner, Senior Planner Relevant Dates: Application Submitted: March 21, 2022 Deemed Complete: June 14, 2022 Public Hearing: August 3, 2022 Subject Site: 3015 and 3031 Willamette Street Map No. / Tax Lot: 18-03-07-11 / 13900 & 16800 Existing Zoning: R-1 Low-Density Residential Requested Zoning: R-2 Medium-Density Residential Application Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Zone Change to change the base zoning of two properties from R-1 Low-Density Residential to R-2 Medium-Density Residential. Purpose of the 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 issuing a decision on the application. The Hearings Official’s written decision on the application is typically made within 15 days following the close of the public record after the public hearing (see EC 9.7330). The applicable quasi-judicial hearing procedures are described at EC 9.7065 through EC 9.7095. Staff Report South Willamette Zone Change | Z 22-4 Page 3 of 56 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 allowed uses for a piece of land, and what standards will apply at the time of development (e.g. height, setbacks). Application Details & Procedure The applicant is requesting approval of a Zone Change to change the base zone of two properties from R-1 Low-Density Residential to R-2 Medium-Density Residential. The Applicant states in their written narrative that the request for zone change approval to two properties is to allow for increased residential densities consistent with the adopted plan designations. The subject properties are designated in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan) as Medium Density Residential. There is no refinement plan applicable in this location. The proposal includes two tax lots that are located on the southeast corner of Willamette Street and East 30th Avenue. The subject properties are developed with two single unit dwellings (one on each tax lot). The adjacent property to the south is zoned R-2, the adjacent properties to the north and west are zoned R-3 Limited High-Density Residential, and the adjacent properties to the east are zoned R-1. The properties are all developed for residential use, with a mix of single-unit dwellings and multiple-unit dwellings. For ease of reference, maps of the vicinity and zoning can be seen in Attachments A and B. Staff Report South Willamette Zone Change | Z 22-4 Page 4 of 56 Timing, Testimony and Notice Application Submitted March 21, 2022 Deemed Complete June 14, 2022 Application DLCD Notice June 29, 2022 Timeline Public Notice (per EC 9.7315) June 30, 2022 Public Hearing August 3, 2022 Testimony As of the publication of this report, no written testimony has been received regarding this proposal. If written testimony is received prior to the public hearing, it will be provided to the Hearings Official for consideration as part of the record. Public Notice and Referrals Public notice was provided in accordance with the requirements of Eugene’s Land Use Code. The Planning Division also provided information concerning the application to appropriate City departments, public agencies, neighborhood organization, and service providers. 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. Zone Change Evaluation In accordance with EC 9.7330, the Hearings Official is required to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a Type III land use application. The decision must be based on, and be accompanied by, findings that explain the criteria and standards considered relevant to the decision. It must also state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision and explain the justification for the decision based upon the criteria, standards, and facts set forth. The Hearings Official will review the application and consider relevant evidence and testimony as to whether the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the applicable criteria required for approval, shown below in bold typeface. To assist the Hearings Official in making a decision on the Zone Change request, staff’s findings in response to each of the criteria are provided below. 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. The applicant is requesting approval to change the base zone of the subject property from R-1 Low-Density Residential to R-2 Medium-Density Residential. The Metro Plan diagram designates the subject property as Medium Density Residential, which is implemented through the proposed R-2 zoning, making the request consistent with the Metro Plan diagram. Staff does Staff Report South Willamette Zone Change | Z 22-4 Page 5 of 56 not see any specific policies from the Metro Plan that would serve as mandatory approval criteria for the applicant’s request. Based on the available information, the request complies with this criterion. 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. There is no adopted refinement plan for the subject property, therefore, this criterion is not applicable. 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). Wastewater There is an existing 8-inch diameter public wastewater line in the vicinity and both lots are currently connected. Stormwater Public stormwater is available in the Public right-of-way of Willamette Street. At the time of development, applicants may be required to address all applicable stormwater management standards including flood control, water quality, oil control, easements, and operation and maintenance. Streets The site has frontage along both Willamette Street and East 30th Avenue, which are fully developed to city standards. Solid Waste: The City of Eugene regulates solid waste, recycling and yard debris collection within the city limits. Collection services are provided by licensed, private entities that may collect from any area in Eugene. Regional disposal sites and the Short Mountain Landfill are operated by Lane County. Water and Electric: The properties have existing services or access to services for water and electrical services, operated by Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). Public Safety: Police protection is provided by the Eugene Police Department within the City limits. Fire protection will be provided by the Eugene/Springfield Fire Department. Emergency Staff Report South Willamette Zone Change | Z 22-4 Page 6 of 56 medical services are currently provided on a regional basis by the cities of Eugene and Springfield. Transportation: The subject property is accessible to pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles via Willamette Street and East 30th Avenue. The subject property is served by a network of sidewalks and streets. Lane Transit District provides bus service in the area. Parks and Recreation: Specific to the subject property, the following parks and recreation amenities are in the general vicinity of the subject property; Amazon Park and Wayne Morse Family Farm. Furthermore, Parks and recreation programs are provided on a City‐wide basis. Therefore, the inclusion of the subject property in the City demonstrates that this urban service is met. Planning and Development Services: Planning and building permit services are provided for all properties located within the urban growth boundary by the City of Eugene. The Eugene Code, Chapter 9, will provide the required land use controls for future development of the subject property. Communication: A variety of telecommunications providers offer communications services throughout the Eugene/Springfield area; therefore, at the time of future development, these services may be accessed, and this key urban service requirement is met. Public Schools: The subject property is within Eugene School District 4J and is within the district boundary of Adams Elementary School, Spencer Butte Middle School, and South Eugene High School. As access to schools is evaluated on a district wide basis, the property’s location within the school district demonstrates the minimum level of urban service is met. Based on these findings, 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: (f) EC 9.2735 Residential Zone Siting Requirements. The siting requirements at EC 9.2735 are only applicable to requests relating to the application of the R-1.5 Rowhouse zone. Because the requested zoning is R-2, there are no siting requirements, and this criterion is not applicable. EC 9.8865(5): In cases where the NR zone is applied based on EC 9.2510(1)(b), 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. The request does not include the NR zone and the subject site is not located in an area that would otherwise require the application of the NR zone. Based on the available information and evidence, this criterion is not applicable. Staff Report South Willamette Zone Change | Z 22-4 Page 7 of 56 Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) 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 proposal qualifies for an exemption under subsection (9), because the applicant is requesting zoning that is consistent with the Metro 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. In their written statement the applicant correctly states that the proposed zoning of the subject property is consistent with the Metro Plan and the Medium Density Residential designation was Staff Report South Willamette Zone Change | Z 22-4 Page 8 of 56 in effect at the time an acknowledged transportation system plan was adopted, 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 proposed zoning will be consistent with the Metro Plan designation, the zone change complies with the exemption allowed under OAR 660-012-0060(9). Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Transportation Planning Rule. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Consistent with the preceding findings of compliance with the Zone Change approval criteria at EC 9.8865, and based on all available information as of the date of this report, staff recommends the Hearings Official approve the request to change the zoning to R-2 Medium- Density Residential for the subject properties. According to 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 notice of decision is mailed, it may be appealed to the Eugene Planning Commission as set forth in EC 9.7650 through EC 9.7685. Attachments Attachment A: Vicinity Map Attachment B: Zoning Map More Information about the land use application process, approval criteria, and general information can be found here: https://www.eugene-or.gov/3208/Land-Use-Information The application materials, and file are available to review for any interested parties. As a courtesy, materials may also be available on the City’s website at: https://pdd.eugene- or.gov/LandUse/ApplicationDetails?file=Z-22-0004 To protect the health of staff and community members, staff can provide digital materials or make appointments to view a physical set of materials. The Permit and Information Center is open for limited hours from 12:00p-4:00p, Monday through Friday. The Hearings Official will receive a full set of application materials for review prior to the public hearing. For more information, please contact Reid Verner, Senior Planner, Eugene Planning Division, at: (541) 682-5534; or by e-mail, at: RVerner@eugene-or.gov Staff Report South Willamette Zone Change | Z 22-4 Page 9 of 56  South Willamette Zone Change (Z 22-4) Vicinity Map Attachment A OA K ST E 29TH PL W 30TH AVE E 30TH AVE WILLAMETTE ST W 31ST AVE E 31ST AVE Subject Property Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to Taxlots change, and for general reference only. Eugene UGB Created on 7/14/2022 by City of Eugene Planning Division ^ Page 10 of 56 0 25 50 Ft 100 N  South Willamette Zone Change (Z 22-4) Zoning Map Attachment B OA K ST E 29TH PL W 30TH AVE R-3 E 30TH AVE WILLAMETTE ST R-1 R-2 W 31ST AVE E 31ST AVE Subject Property Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to R-1 Low-Density Residential change, and for general reference only. R-2 Medium-Density Residential Created on 7/14/2022 by City of Eugene Planning Division R-3 Limited High-Density Residential Taxlots ^ Page 11 of 56 0 25 50 Ft 100 N  The Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 | Fax: 541.682.5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning Memorandum Date: July 27, 2022 To: Virginia Gustafson Lucker, Eugene Hearings Official From: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division Subject: Appeal of the Planning Director’s Decision Denying a Request for Vacation of Improved Pedestrian/Bicycle Easement (City File VEI 22-1) ______________________________________________________________________________ ACTION REQUESTED: To hold a public hearing on August 3, 2022 and make a final local decision on an appeal of the Eugene Planning Director’s decision to deny a Vacation of Improved Pedestrian/Bicycle Easement for Hill Randall (City File VEI 22-1). BACKGROUND: On June 27, 2022, the Planning Director denied the Vacation of Improved Pedestrian/Bicycle Easement application for Hill Randall that is the subject of this appeal. The easement was dedicated to the City of Eugene as part of the recorded plat for the “Kungys Estates” Subdivision (City files S 94-16 and WG 94-2) to serve as both an access route for emergency vehicles and as a pedestrian/bicycle path. That easement area was improved in 1994 with a 12- foot wide paved path. In 2012, the applicant sought City approval of a vacation (City File VEI 12-2) and replacement of the easement area, seeking to establish two separate easements on the subdivision site (a 20- foot emergency access easement through the center of the property and a 12-foot pedestrian/bicycle easement along the southern portion of the property). The original easement area was vacated by the City and accepting in its place the new easements in the areas proposed by the applicant. The replacement easement for a pedestrian/bicycle path was then paved and currently provides access between River Road and the Stephens Drive cul-de- sac, which connects to the West Bank Path, a part of the Ruth Bascom River Path System along the Willamette River. On January 26, 2022, the applicant filed the subject request to vacate the 12-foot wide pedestrian/bicycle easement that was approved in 2012, as a replacement of the originally dedicated easement. The subject application was deemed complete on May 13, 2022 and the Director issued the decision denying the vacation application on June 27, 2022. 1 Page 12 of 56 On July 7, 2022, William Randall filed an appeal of the Planning Director’s decision denying the vacation request, on behalf of Hill Randall, LLC. The appeal raises seven issues with the Planning Director’s decision of denial. The appeal also introduces new testimony into the record. Public notice of the August 3, 2022 appeal hearing was mailed on July 14, 2022. Since the notice was sent, written public testimony from 16 citizens were submitted as of July 26, 2022; this testimony is included as an attachment for ease of reference. If additional testimony is received after the publishing of this staff report it will be forwarded to the Hearings Official and added to the record. Further background information on this appeal, including the Director’s decision denying the vacation request is included in the full record of materials provided separately. For ease of reference, a vicinity map and reduced site plan are included as Attachments A and B to this memorandum. The written appeal statement is included as Attachment C, public testimony is included as Attachment D, and the Planning Director’s decision denying the vacation request as Attachment E. More details regarding the application are provided in the Planning Director’s decision and the application file for reference. APPEAL PROCEDURES The appeal hearing will follow quasi-judicial procedures as required by EC 9.7625 and EC 9.7065-9.7095. The decision on this appeal will be based on whether the Planning Director properly evaluated the request and made a decision consistent with applicable approval criteria for the Vacation of Improved Pedestrian/Bicycle Easement application at EC 9.8720. The decision on this appeal will be made within 15 days from the close of the public record unless the parties agree otherwise. The Hearings Official may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the Planning Director. Once made, the decision of the Hearings Official will be the City’s final local decision. The final local decision on this appeal is required by September 9, 2022 to meet the statutory 120-day deadline. Appeals of Planning Director Decisions are subject to the provisions at EC 9.7600 through 9.7635, except that in this case, the appeal is not subject to the limitations set forth in EC 9.7605(3). Because the Vacation of Improved Pedestrian/Bicycle Easement is a “permit” as defined by ORS 227.160(2) and 227.215, in accordance with ORS 227.175(10), the appeal hearing will be “de novo” (new evidence and information may be submitted) and the presentation of testimony, arguments and evidence is not limited to issues raised in a notice of appeal. APPEAL ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSE: The appeal statement raises seven issues related to the Planning Director’s decision denying the vacation request. To assist the Hearings Official in determining whether to affirm, reverse, or modify the Planning Director’s decision, staff has identified pertinent record information and considerations below. A summary of each appeal issue is provided below, followed by a summary of the Planning Director’s Decision and staff comments and recommendation. 2 Page 13 of 56 Appeal Issue #1: Asphalt versus concrete path Summary of Appellant’s Issue: The Director’s decision described the pedestrian/bicycle path as a 12-foot wide concrete path. Appellant asserts the path in question was a deteriorating asphalt path. Appellant states this is presented “solely for the sake of accuracy in this evaluation”. Summary of Planning Director’s Decision On page 1 of the decision, under the heading Application Details & Procedure, the original easement was described as, “improved in 1994 with a 12-foot wide concrete path”. Staff Comments and Recommendation: This issue is based on the appellant’s assertion that the path was incorrectly described as a concrete path. It is noted that the type of path material, whether it is concrete or asphalt, is not a consideration in any of the criteria evaluation for EC 9.8720(1)-(4), which the Director’s decision is based on. Therefore, the type of path material is not relevant to and has no bearing on the decision. The Director did not err by denying the vacation application since the path material is not relevant to the approval criteria. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. Appeal Issue #2: Public testimony withheld from applicant. Summary of Appellant’s Issue: The Director’s decision states staff had received 32 submissions of testimony and 8 phone calls from concerned neighbors. The receipt of the Decision was the appellant’s first indication of such testimony. Appellant notes that one citizen made multiple submissions. Appellant states this issue is presented “solely for the sake of accuracy in this evaluation”. Summary of Planning Director’s Decision: The Director’s decision indicates that staff received 32 submissions of testimony from concerned neighbors and 8 phone calls and messages regarding this application. A breakdown of the number of citizens in support or opposition to the proposal is provided and a list of the general themes expressed by each group is provided. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Testimony regarding the application was received by staff between May 19 and June 2, 2022 and added to the record for the application. This testimony was combined into one document and posted to the City’s online Land Use Application Search page on June 8, 2022, making the testimony submitted available to the public at that time. On June 28, 2022, the applicant requested a copy of the testimony received and staff provided a link to the above-mentioned online resource. Staff notes the appellant makes no assertion that Director’s decision is in error regarding this issue. 3 Page 14 of 56 Therefore, the Director did not err by denying the vacation application and referencing the testimony in the decision. The testimony in question was available to the general public and provided to the applicant upon request. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. Appeal Issue #3: Definition of public accessway Summary of Appellant’s Issue: Appellant asserts the Director erred by referring to the easement as a “public accessway”. Appellant contests the term “public”, since according to EC 9.0500, a public accessway must be “publicly owned or controlled”. Appellant claims the easement is a private easement across the applicant’s property and not owned by the City, and that use of the easement does not constitute public control of the easement. Summary of Planning Director’s Decision: The Director’s decision, beginning on page 3 describes the subject easement as a “public accessway” and references the definition of public accessway at EC 9.0500 as a footnote. Staff Comments and Recommendation: The appellant’s assertion that the easement at issue is a “private easement” is incorrect. The area proposed to be vacated is clearly a public pedestrian/bicycle easement, established by the original subdivision approval and the subsequent City approval (VEI 12-2) of a Vacation of Improved Easement and the relocation of said easement, and recorded in Lane County Deeds and Records (2013-016881) on March 28, 2013. The approval and County recording process established the existing easement along the southern property boundary as a public pedestrian/bicycle easement. The applicant’s argument that the easement is private would eviscerate the easement entirely. ORS 105.170 defines “easement” as “a nonpossessory interest in the land of another which entitles the holders of an interest in the easement to a private right of way, embodying the right to pass across another’s land.” There is no question that the public does not own the underlying land, but in granting the easement, the underlying owner transferred a significant amount of control over the area to the public. When the public easement was transferred to the City, the owner gave up its control over the public’s passage through the easement area. That is the entire purpose of the easement. While pedantic, the Planning Director’s description of the easement area as a “public accessway” is not wrong, as the applicant argues. A public pedestrian and/or bicycle accessway is constructed in the public easement area. The City’s land use code defines “public accessway” as “a publicly owned or controlled interconnecting paved way that provides pedestrian and/or bicycle passage.” The public easement at issue gives the holder of the easement – the public – the right to control to the degree necessary to exercise its right to pass across the land. The easement is a connector between other accessways or right-of-way and, regardless of whether it is asphalt or concrete, the easement is paved. 4 Page 15 of 56 The Director did not err by denying the Vacation application and referring to the easement as a public accessway. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. Appeal Issue #4: Dismissal of Nollan/Dolan Summary of Appellant’s Issue: The Director erred by not addressing the Nollan/Dolan arguments presented by the applicant in the application materials, which challenged the constitutionality of the City’s approvals in 1994 and 2012. Summary of Planning Director’s Decision: The Director determined on page 3 of the decision, as to whether the easement was lawfully required under Nollan/Dolan law, that: “For purposes of this application, the latter two assertions do not require analysis. Such inquiries are immaterial because the relevant question is whether the City easement on which Kungys accessway is located is needed for a public facility presently or in the future”. Staff Comments and Recommendation: The Nollan/Dolan cases are not relevant to this appeal. Those cases establish limitations on the government’s ability to require that a private property owner grant its interest in private property to the public. The application at issue is, instead, a private property owner’s request that the government grant its interest in public property back to the private property owner. The Director did not err in determining the Nollan/Dolan cases do not require analysis for this vacation request. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. Appeal Issue #5: Multiple Transportation Options Statement Summary of Appellant’s Issue: Appellant asserts the Director erred by not providing supporting data for the statement in the decision regarding transportation systems having “more than one way to get from point A to point B”. Summary of Planning Director’s Decision: On page 4 of the decision, the Director discusses the subject easement which serves as a means for travel between River Road and the West Bank Path, providing safe and direct pedestrian and bicycle connection between the West Bank Path, the homes, and the signalized intersection of River Road and Park Avenue. The Director’s decision acknowledges other accessways in the vicinity by referencing the Rasor Park Path to the south and Stults Avenue to the north, and establishes the fact that transportation systems typically feature more than one way to get from point A to point B. The Director found that regarding these other accessways, the Rasor Park Path was not intended by the City to replace the Kungys accessway, and Stults Avenue does not have sidewalks or other pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure. Therefore, other 5 Page 16 of 56 accessways present potential safety conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles as compared to the Kungys accessway. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Attachment B of the Director’s decision (Attachment E to this memorandum) shows three existing pedestrian accessways between the West Bank Path and River Road: the subject pedestrian/bicycle easement, Rasor Park Path to the south, and Stults Avenue to the north. Points A and B, located at each end of the subject easement, are shown on Attachment A. The multiple accessways to get from Point A to Point B are also shown in blue and red on the attachment. Attachment B clearly provides additional data that supports the Director’s statement that there is “more than one way to get from point A to point B”. While the Planning Director did not err in making the statement above, it is worth noting that Eugene’s transportation system inherently relies on robust connectivity and the need for multiple routes from one point to another. This is generally supported by the City’s Transportation System Plan (TSP), System-Wide Policy #1, which states, “Foster neighborhoods where Eugene residents could meet most of their basic daily needs without an automobile by providing streets, sidewalks, bikeways, and access to transit in an inviting environment where all travelers feel safe and secure” and Policy #4, which states “Promote connections between modes of transportation to make each mode more efficient, such as by connecting bicycle routes and bus, train, and airport services to each other; and connections to transportation facilities extending outside the City’s planning area.” Similar policies supporting connections exist under the roadway1, pedestrian 2, and bicycle 3 policies. The TSP clearly dictates that these policies cannot be used to approve or deny a land use application, so they’re being provided here only as context in support of an interconnected system for different modes of transportation. Such policies do support the City’s land use code that requires the review and consideration of connectivity between in our transportation system, for example at EC 9.6815 and 9.6835. The Director did not err in stating there is more than one way to get from point A to point B and did in fact provide data establishing that there are multiple ways to get between these two points. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. 1 Eugene TSP 2035 Roadway Policy: Improve connectivity and address deficiencies in the street network, both inside the Urban Growth Boundary and connecting to neighboring cities, with the understanding that connectivity needs may differ based on an area’s planned land uses (e.g., large lot industrial areas may have different needs than residential areas). 2 Eugene TSP 2035 Pedestrian Policy: Ensure that there are safe, accessible, comfortable, and direct sidewalk connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops. Continually improve walking comfort, safety, and accessibility through design, operations, retrofits, and maintenance. 3 Eugene TSP 2035 Bicycle Policy #2: Develop a well-connected and comfortable bikeway network. Ensure that there are safe, comfortable, and direct bikeway connections between residential areas, major destinations, and transit stops and provide secure bicycle parking facilities at these destinations. 6 Page 17 of 56 Appeal Issue #6: Travel Distances Summary of Appellant’s Issue: The appellant does not directly state or indicate how the Director erred regarding this issue. Appellant does mention the Director’s statement that the easement enables shorter travel distances for the public, however, the appellant does not challenge this statement. The appellant argues that the additional travel distance to the Rasor Park Path, presumably for residents on Stephens Drive, would add no more than 1,200 feet to reach the River Road and Park Avenue intersection, which is under the City’s definition of “nearby” (1/4 mile or 1,320 feet for pedestrians. Appellant also states that three residents on Stephens Drive support the vacation. Summary of Planning Director’s Decision: The Director’s decision on page 4 and Attachment B considered the travel distances for the multiple accessways that exist for those traveling between River Road and the West Bank Path, including residents along Stephens Drive. The Director found that the subject pedestrian/bicycle easement enables shorter travel distances for pedestrians and cyclists who live in the Kungys Estates project, as well as other users accessing River Road, Stephens Drive, or the West Bank Path. Staff Comments and Recommendation: Since the appellant did not indicate how the Director erred regarding this issue, and the Director considered the travel distances for those who live in the Kungys Estates project as well as other users accessing River Road, Stephens Drive, or the West Bank Path, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. Appeal Issue #7: “Provide” versus “Provide for” Summary of Appellant’s Issue: The appellant asserts that the Director erred in the decision by placing the burden on the applicant to “provide for” the easement replacement, which means the applicant must provide the replacement. Appellant argues that the Rasor Park Path “provides for” the replacement and is safer than the existing easement. Summary of Planning Director’s Decision: On page 5 of the decision, the Director found the applicant had not provided for a replacement easement in the subject area as required by criteria at EC 9.8720, which states in part, “the applicant shall provide for the replacement and abandonment or any existing public services, facilities…”. The Director also found that even if the Rasor Park Path could serve as the replacement, the Rasor Park Path is not an adequate “replacement” for the subject pedestrian/bicycle easement, since it requires a longer travel distance and does not provide direct access to a safe signalized intersection at River Road. 7 Page 18 of 56 Staff Comments and Recommendation: The appellant appears to ignore the central point of the Planning Director’s decision. The Rasor Park Path, which the applicant holds out as an adequate “replacement” for the subject easement, is not an adequate replacement, regardless of who established that path. It was established by the City after the subject easement was already in public use, and it was not intended by the City to replace the subject easement. The Rasor Park Path was constructed as an additional connection to the path system. The Rasor Park Path was approved by the Eugene Hearings Official in May of 2012 with a Willamette Greenway Permit (WG 12-2) and Standards Review (SDR 12-3). Neither the application materials nor the approval decision included any characterization of the Rasor Park Path as a replacement for any existing connections on nearby properties. The Director did not err by denying the application and finding the pedestrian/bicycle easement through the site provides a needed public facility and finding that the Rasor Park Path does not constitute the applicant’s provision of a replacement for the subject easement area. Based on the available information, staff finds no basis to reverse or otherwise modify the decision. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Site Plan (reduced in size) C. Written Appeal Statement and exhibits: I. Exhibit A – Letter from Mike Reeder, Response to Order to Correct II. Exhibit B – Site plan and easement location III. Exhibit C – Aerial view of site IV. Exhibit D – Rasor Park Master Plan D. Public Testimony on Appeal E. Planning Director’s Decision and Attachments Related application and appeal materials are available as a courtesy on the City’s website at: https://pdd.eugene-or.gov/LandUse/ApplicationDetails?file=VEI-22-0001 To protect the health of staff and community members, staff can provide digital materials or make appointments to view a physical set of materials. The Permit and Information Center is open for limited hours from 12:00p-4:00p Monday through Friday. The Hearings Official will receive a full record of materials for review prior to the public hearing. FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner, City of Eugene Planning Division, 541-682-5453 or via email at ngioello@eugene-or.gov 8 Page 19 of 56  Vicinity Map VEI 22-1 Hill Randall - Appeal Attachment A ELKAY DR MCCLURE LN SUNNYSIDE DR JACKIES LN STULTS AVE RIVE R RD DR STE PHENS PARK AVE ST HARDY AVE DORRIS HAWTHORNE AVE Subject Property Caution: This map is based on imprecise source data, subject to Taxlots change, and for general reference only. Eugene UGB Created on 7/27/2022 ^ by City of Eugene Planning Division Page 20 of 56 0 50 100 Ft 200 N  N 89º 37' 23" E 215.38' 10' RIV DELTA: 3º 49' 28" RAD: 2341.83' PROPOSED APARTMENT LOT 1 12.7' ARC: 156.32' BUILDING CITY LOG NO OA LC: N13º 59' 42" W 12-01033-01 KUNGYS ESTATES 156.29' ER R ± 29,800 SQ FT D 13.2' O CL ARC: 14.66' ARC: 34.84' ARC: 114.46' 50' T R/W 0 ' RAD: 53.16' RAD: 62.00' RAD: 220.00' 1 0 LC: S78º07'16"E LC: S86º18'53"E LC: S87º30'21"E 14.62' 34.38' 113.18' Adjacent 20’ Emergency S 00º 16' 14" E 152.38' CL Vehicle and Pedestrian Access S86º30'00"E 22.27' 32.35' Easement RELOCATED 20' WIDE EMERGENCY ARC: 10.44' VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT N0º16'14"W N89º43'46"E RAD: 57.07' 3920 SQ FT MORE OR LESS 10.00' LC: N75º52'50"W 21.20' 10.43' ARC: 113.72' 21.20' ARC: 33.52' RAD: 200.00' N85º26'12"E LC: N87º27'55"W Page 21 of 56 RAD: 58.00' N86º30'00"W 11.80' 112.19' 33.71' S11º36'10"W LC: N87º11'48"W ARC: 167.49' 33.06' RAD: 197.00' 10.11' LC: N87º07'10"E 12.33' 162.49' ARC: 178.09' RELOCATED 12' WIDE RAD: 209.00' S82º13'30"W PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT LC: S86º24'35"W 6.97' 2445 SQ FT MORE OR LESS S 89º 54' 29" W 178.31' 172.75' Vacate Only the Pedestrian Easement W HILLIARD E HILLIARD EASEMENT RELOCATION 17-04-24-42-02600 STULTZ PARK AVE ETTE R NORTH SITE SCALE: 1" = 40' Attachment B WILLAM DATE: 04-12-2012 KNOOP LN D IVER RIVER R VICINITY MAP  Attachment C WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION FOR VACATION OF AN IMPROVED EASEMENT HILL RANDALL (VEI 22-1) There are a number of issues to address in this appeal of the Planning Director's decision related to the above Vacation of an Improved Easement. We will address those issues generally in the order they were presented in the Director's decision, primarily for clarity and reference and not to establish priority of importance. ISSUE I -ASPHALT VS CONCRE TE PATH The Director states that the original 1994 path was a"12 ft wide concrete path" when, in fact, it was a deteriorating asphalt path. This is presented solely for the sake of accuracy in this evaluation. ISSUE 2 -PUBLIC TESTIMONY WITHHELD FROM APPLICANT In the written decision, the Director stated that"staff received 32 submissions of testimony from concerned neighbors, as well as 8 phone calls and messages regarding this application." The receipt of the written decision was the first notification that theApplicant had about this testimony. In reviewing the testimony, there were multiple submissions from the same household (Campbell, IO16 Elkay Drive), resulting in 28 unique submittals.Again, this is submitted solely for the sake of accuracy and clarity. ISSUE 3 -DEFINITION OF PUBLIC ACCESS WAY The Director erred by asserting that the present easement is a"public access way" as defined by EC 9.0500.Applicant takes issue with the term"public" since the definition in EC 9.0500 states that such access way must be"publicly owned or controlled" and the easement is a private easement acrossApplicant's property and not owned by the City. The use of the easement by the public in no way constitutes public"control" of the easement. It is a benefit granted by a private owner for the use of the public. ISSUE 4 - DISMISSAL OF NOLLAN/DOLAN The Director states that the Nollan/Dolan arguments presented by Applicant'sAttorney are "immaterial" and"do not require analysis." This is a gross error in not even considering such cases with striking similarities to the Greenway property. In Nol/an v. California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 ( 1987), the US Supreme Court held two specific points relevant to this project. First, they held the condition of an easement"would be lawful land use regulation if it substantially furthered governmental purposes that would justify denial of the permit:' (Pp 483 US 831-837; which it did not). Second, they held that"although the State is free to advance its 'comprehensive program' by exercising its eminent domain power and paying for access easements, it cannot compel coastal residents alone to the realization of that goat:• (Pp 483 US 838-842). The issue here as stated by Applicant'sAttorney is that"there were no findings of fact or conclusions of law or any evidence in the record to support the proposition that the proposed development created a harm to the public and/or that the exacted pedestrian and bicycle easement would mitigate such harm." (ExhibitA of VacationApplication, page 2). Page 22 of 56 Page 23 of 56 Page 24 of 56 Page 25 of 56 Page 26 of 56 Page 27 of 56 Page 28 of 56 Page 29 of 56 Page 30 of 56  Attachment D From: Patrick Hudson To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: VEl 22- 001 comment Date: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:10:18 PM [EXTERNAL ]  Keep public access to the bike path Thanks, Patrick hudson A Bike path user Page 31 of 56 From: Elise Campbell To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Pedestrian/Bicycle Easement 785 River Road Date: Sunday, July 17, 2022 8:39:05 AM [EXTERNAL ] Please accept my written comments for the hearing regarding the above named easement. First of all, what kind of precedent would be set if property owners are allowed to just say whatever is necessary to obtain building permits with no intention of honoring those agreements? We have been tax paying homeowners in the area for 43 years, and the river access was there long before those apartments or residences were built. Closing the easement and the gate affects ALL the public while it "benefits" just a very few who live in the apartments or on Stephens. They knew of the proximity to the river when they moved and/or built there, and it was their choice to proceed anyway. They should not be permitted to alter the easement requirements as previously agreed. Razor Park is not a viable option since there is no crosswalk with a light there. If bicyclists use the light at Park Ave/River Rd to access Razor Park, it requires them to either ride the wrong way in the bike lane or on the sidewalk, endangering both themselves, oncoming traffic, and pedestrians. It is also very unsafe for pedestrians or bicyclists to use the VERY narrow street of Stults Ave.   Unfortunately, vandalism exists all over town. It's not just at 785 River Road. If excessive vandalism there does indeed exist, closing the gate would only make it more likely for the vandals to damage other properties in the area. What makes them more important than the other neighbors and businesses in the area? Many possible reasonable solutions were suggested to the property owners, such as signage and fencing along the easement for separation from the apartments, but they chose to reject them all. Please take into consideration the safety and pleasure of the general population, and don't let one wealthy property owner dictate how a public easement should be closed off for what it was originally intended. They're not the only property owners who pay taxes; we all do. Thank you for the opportunity to allow input from the general public. Anne "Elise" Campbell 1016 Elkay Dr Eugene OR 97404 Page 32 of 56 From: Anita Sullivan To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: re: easement through Greenway Townhouses Date: Sunday, July 17, 2022 6:43:11 AM [EXTERNAL ] To Whom It May Concern: I live at the north end of Park Ave., and my closest outlet to the wonderful river loop between the two footbridges happens to be the easement from Park Ave/River Rod through the Greenway Townhouses and along the cul-de-sac beyond. I walk every day at least a couple of miles, and this is my closest entry to the wonderful river path. It feels like a sort of gut punch to have this access shut off, as if the rest of us out here are some kind of low-lifes who can’t be trusted to walk from a road to a river without becoming a threat or a nuisance. I want to speak loudly — not about my “rights” — but just about connection with the natural world. River Road is loud and incessant in its noise and pollution. A few yards away there is the quiet majesty of the river, with its plants and birds and constant stimulation to our neglected sense of beauty. Please don’t take more of it away from us. Anita Sullivan Page 33 of 56 From: Stefan Ostrach To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: VEI 22- 001 Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 6:06:53 PM [EXTERNAL ] I have lived on Mayfair Lane in the River Road neighborhood since 1979 and have used this easement consistently to access the Riverbank bike path system for all of that time. I strenuously object to Greenway Townhouses owners effort to shut off this vital access. Sent from Mail for Windows Page 34 of 56 From: Carolee von Shillagh To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Greenway Gate Bike Passageway Date: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:37:01 AM [EXTERNAL ] Dear Nick, I am writing for the third time regarding this issue. There are a number of perfectly reasonable points to discuss here. This has been a public access for at least 35 years that I personally can attest to. There is a safe crossing at River Road there, with a walk signal. These are very far apart on River Road, which is very busy. I am other- abled myself and know many neighbors who also cannot simply dash across the road at a blinking signal that even warns “vehicles may not stop”. The alternative are not easy or safe. Stults is narrow with parking on two sides and the Rasor Park path means riding on the sidewalk or in the road against traffic. We are developing very aggressively in this area of town and putting significant funds into the bike path for everyone’s safe enjoyment, but many developers are not including public access across their projects. This seems like counter productive policy making. I believe keeping this gate open is imperative for good relations in our neighborhood and make perfect sense Safety wise as well. Should the EMX project come to fruition this will be an even more important way of passage for the tax payers of the neighborhood. How much time, money and effort will the city use fighting this issue. Public opinion has spoken loudly and often on this more that once. Thank you for considering a right and reasonable decision for the public enjoyment of our beautiful river resources. Respectfully, Carolee von Shillagh 70 Knoop Lane Eugene, OR. 97404 Page 35 of 56 From: Julie Hulme To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: VEI 22-001 (Hill Randall Decision) Date: Tuesday, July 19, 2022 5:09:44 PM [EXTERNAL ] To whom it may concern, As a 38-year resident in the River Road neighborhood and frequent bicyclist, I am writing to share my strong opposition to closing the public easement connecting River Road to the West Bank Bikepath via the Greenway Townhouses property. In addition to setting a dangerous precedent of vacating valued public easements that were clearly a component of the property purchase, it would have serious safety consequences for our neighborhood. The public easement- a longtime, historic pathway for the neighborhood- has only become more valuable to our neighborhood as bicycle and pedestrian traffic increases each year. The two alternatives suggested by the appellants are inadequate and present safety issues that are readily apparent by a simple site visit. A public meeting, followed by written correspondence, offered the owners of Greenway Townhouses viable, feasible solutions to their concerns of having the easement open to the public. The audacity of the owners to erect a locked gate blocking access to the bike path via the public easement without due process or knowledge by the City of Eugene or the neighborhood association should not be forgotten in considering their current request to vacate the easement. It also illustrates a lack of collaboration and disingenuity that has strained neighborhood relations. As our neighborhood continues to infill with new home construction, safe access to the bike path and the Willamette River gains importance in livability, equity, and quality of life for residents. I urge you to uphold the recommendation of the City planning staff and River Road Community Organization to deny vacating the public easement and blocking local access to the West Bank Bike Path. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Julie Hulme 455 1/2 River Rd. Eugene, OR 97404 jhulme3@gmail.com Page 36 of 56 Page 37 of 56 From: Jolene Siemsen To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: BELCHER Jon (SMTP); Julie Hulme Subject: Greenway Townhouse Community Access Path Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 12:20:38 PM [EXTERNAL ] To whom it may concern, I am writing once again to express my support for the continuation of public access to the West Bank Path along a public easement right of way at the Greenway Townhouse complex on River Road. I have used this public access to commute by bike to work, beginning decades ago before the townhouses were built. After the townhouses were constructed, I continued to use this access way on a daily basis to commute via bicycle. Now that I am retired I use the path daily, for recreation and exercise, to gain access to the river path in order to walk my dog along the river. I live on the west side of River Road. I cross River Road at the signal at Park Ave, which seems to be the safest way to get across the road. Utilizing other potential access routes (Stults, Rasor Park), requires walking in the street or navigating narrow sidewalks and an abrupt turn with limited visibility. Neither of these options is safe or convenient. Please honor previous decisions and the voices of my neighbors. Keep this public access way open for all. Sincerely, Jolene Siemsen 190 Hawthorne Ave Eugene, OR Jolene Siemsen Page 38 of 56 From: Emily Omier To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: 785 River Road Date: Thursday, July 21, 2022 2:29:26 PM [EXTERNAL ] Dear Mr. Gioello, I live next to the property listed above, at 710 Stephens Drive, and would like to note that I am strongly in favor of ending the easement and blocking pedestrian and bicycle access between 785 River Road and Stephens Drive. Here’s why: There is an increase in vandalism when access is open, as well as an increase in people looking into and breaking into vehicles Many pedestrians and bicyclists are not aware of the shared nature of our alleyway. Bicyclists treat it as a street and move very quickly, pedestrians treat is as a sidewalk and are not aware that I or one of my neighbors could be pulling out of the driveway at any moment. Nearly all dogs are off-leash, and that creates a hazard for myself, my child and my neighbors. Most pedestrians, once they reach the end of the alleyway, do not walk on the sidewalk but rather walk in the middle of Stephens Drive, which is dangerous for both them and for drivers. Just as importantly, access to the river path is very, very close, via Rasor park, which is more appropriate for both cyclists and pedestrians. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Emily Omier Page 39 of 56 From: Vicky Winders To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: HILL RANDALL LLC (VEI 22-1) Date: Thursday, July 21, 2022 8:54:15 AM [EXTERNAL ] TO: Eugene Hearings Official RE: File Name HILL RANDALL LLC (VEI 22-1) I am writing to support the City’s decision to keep open the easement and 785 River Road and Stephens Drive. I live across the street and have the opportunity to see the significant use of the easement. I also use the easement. The people that use the easement are coming from all over the area so it would be almost impossible to notify everyone. I am sure those in favor of keeping the easement would even be greater if they knew of the possibility of permanent closure. The reason that I use this easement instead of other available routes to the bike path is that it is safest. It is at a controlled traffic signal ensuring vehicles will stop so that I can cross. There are no parked cars or traffic, as with Stultz, where you have to walk/ride in the street. I understand due process of appeals and I appreciate the city’s time and resources. Please keep your decision to deny the request to vacate the easement. Easements are used by all and are a necessary infrastructure. Thank you. Vicky Winders 806 River Road Eugene Page 40 of 56 From: Kerry Barrett To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Keeping gate unlocked at Park and River Road Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 1:12:04 PM [EXTERNAL ] My name is Kerry Barrett and I would like to submit a comment concerning the possibility of the gate being locked again. I work with the disabled population and one of my clients lives in the area. We walk through that access point once a week. I know that she walks through it 5 days a week. When it was locked it was a major inconvenience and my client was quite distressed about the gate being locked as she has grown up in the neighborhood and it’s never been locked before. I understand that there have been some problems with theft and vandalism. Is there possibly a solution that can make all parties happy? One solution could be to just lock it at night so it is open during the day. I hope dialog to resolve this issue will continue until all parties are satisfied. We’re really hoping there can be more dialog, possibly within the involved neighborhood folks that will be impacted by this situation. Again, thank you for your consideration in this very important matter. Sincerely, Kerry Barrett Page 41 of 56 From: Nancy Boyd To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Bike/Pedestrian Path - VEI 22- 001 Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 10:55:16 AM [EXTERNAL ] To Associate Planner Nick Gioello, I stand by the City of Eugene’s Planning Departments decision to deny the application from Bill Randal and Dan Hill to vacate the public easement that leads from River Road at Park Ave. to Stephens Dr. and the Wilamette Greenway. It is imperative that the city provide safe, accessible alternative resources for non-fuel transportation, and I applaud their decision to keep this pathway open. To eliminate this pedestrian/bicycle pathway would be a step backwards. Again, I submit my original arguement here. Please do not eliminate our peaceful path to the river. Privatizing this public path is wrong on so many levels not the least of which is that it sets a dangerous precedent for similar issues that may occur in the future. Closing this path to public use denies the rights of the tax paying majority for the benefit of a few. The notice of this proposed closure was not sufficiently publicized nor has there been adequate time to respond. I only found out about the proposal through social media even though I live within a few hundred yards of the path. On April 14th of 2021 the River Road Community Organization presented the property owners with a proposal in an attempt to reach an equitable solution for both the property owners and the hundreds of pedestrians and bicyclists who use the path. Included in the proposal were the following options: - To leave the access open during the day and close it at night. - To redirect the fencing so that the Greenway Townhouses are completely fenced off from the path. The property owners refused any compromise. The property owners have cited vandalism as a reason to lock the gate through to Stephens Drive. Vandalism is a problem that we all deal with. A locked gate will not keep vandals out. Page 42 of 56 For example, The Ciderstation just down the street, is surrounded by locked, ten foot high fences with barbed wire across the top and they have experienced multiple break- ins in the past few months. A locked gate only keeps law abiding citizens out. On an emotional level it just really feels like my rights are being violated in favor of property developers with money, power and influence. We have used the said path to the river for 27 years (with the exception of the nine months that is was illegally blocked.) I walk daily with my autistic daughter and our dog. By crossing River Road at the light on Park Avenue we are able to stop traffic, cross the road and continue on our walk peacefully without dealing with the speedy, incredibly loud traffic on River Road. When our path was blocked from November of 2020 to May of 2021 it was very frightening for my daughter. Walking the sidewalk along River Road to the Razor Park access path caused enhanced anxiety which led to breakdowns, anger, aggression and other behaviors. Using Stults Avenue proved to be even more dangerous and frightening. It feels as though ordinary citizens have less and less agency over what happens in their own neighborhood. It saddens me that the property owners are unwilling to work out a neighborly solution. During this very difficult season of restricted social activity the one thing that we can count on is the easy access to a peaceful walk along the river, please don’t take that away from us. I appreciate your full, unbiased attention to this matter. Nancy Boyd 190 Park Ave. Page 43 of 56 From: DAN CAMPBELL To: GIOELLO Nick R Subject: Greenway Townhouses Gate for River Path Access Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 11:32:42 AM [EXTERNAL ] I have lived on Elkay Drive since 1978 and beginning in around 1999 or 2000 I have used the path that connects the intersection of River Road and Park Avenue to Stevens. It has recently come to my attention that the owners of the Greenway Townhouses are again pursuing permission to close the gate that allows access from that intersection, which in turn provides clear access to the river path. During the time the owners locked that passage last year, we found alternate passages to the river path to be far less convenient. It was my understanding that the owner had agreed to an easement through that gate allowing access to the public in order to receive building approval. Having used that route since long before the apartments were built, it seemed reasonable to me that the public should continue to use it. After the gate was reopened last year, I thought the issues were resolved. I understood that the easement agreed to by the owner was irrevocable, so I am confused that it should be coming up again. Was the easement permanent and irrevocable as I thought, or was it only temporary? I recall that when we met with the owner after they first blocked the gate, the owner was not interested in suggestions to improve the "problems" that they identified, such as locking their garbage bins, or fencing along the pedestrian path to cause walkers and bicyclists to use the provided pedestrian path, instead of the parking lot or sidewalks adjacent to the apartments. I hope this will be resolved soon, and I hope to be able to continue to use the route that I have been used to for over twenty years. Sincerely, Dan Campbell 1016 Elkay Drive Eugene, OR 97404 Page 44 of 56 From: Cathryn Cardellino To: GIOELLO Nick R; cochair@riverroadco.org Subject: Greenway Townhomes Public Access Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 5:33:59 PM [EXTERNAL ] Dear sir, I’m a senior citizen who uses the path through the Greenway Townhomes frequently. I live off Park Ave and have been walking through there since it was just a vacant lot. Was happy to see nice townhomes built there, a blacktop path around the swale and the promise to keep the public access for all. The other route options are not easy or safe, especially for seniors ... Stults is narrow with parking on two sides and the Rasor Park path means riding on the sidewalk or in the road against traffic. Not easy for seniors. Please keep access that already exists for the public enjoyment of our beautiful river resources. Sincerely, Cathryn Cardellino Walnut Ave Page 45 of 56 From: Michael Strasburger To: GIOELLO Nick R; cochair@riverroadco.org Subject: Greenway Public Access Date: Sunday, July 24, 2022 5:21:35 PM [EXTERNAL ] Please disregard the previous email I sent :-( Nick Gioello, I’ve been walking through this property to the river for 20 years, far before the Greenway Townhomes existed. I know Bill Randall and his firm do a lot of business with the city, and I was frankly surprised and elated when the ruling kept it open. This is what they signed up for when they built there — and built the path on the south side for us to walk on: public access forever! Please keep it open for the all of us that use this path daily. Respectfully, Michael Strasburger Page 46 of 56 From: David Becker To: GIOELLO Nick R Cc: David Becker Subject: HILL RANDALL LLC (VEI 22-1) Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 1:41:37 PM [EXTERNAL ] Nick Gioello I have been using this pathway for over 30 years three or four times a week since it was a dirt path, walking, and biking. Hill/Randall over exaggerates the so-called problems they are having on their property. The only problem that I saw was someone going through their garbage. This could be stopped by placing a lock on the gate to the garage shed. They have a lock on their other facilities the Blossoms apartment. Hill/Randall has rejected a plan for the fence between their property and the bike path. This could stop a lot of problems if there is a problem at all. It looks to me as if this is a scam for Hill/Randall to acquire this public property for their benefit they have not taken anybody’s suggestions to solve any of their problems. Please keep this pathway open as it is difficult to get to the main bike path. Also, it should be kept open for a fire lane in case of a fire. Thank you, David Becker 541 689 8456 H 541 521 0824 C P O Box 40411. Eugene Or 97404 Page 47 of 56  Attachment E The Atrium Building 99 West 10th Avenue, Eugene, Oregon 97401 Phone: 541.682.5377 I Fax: 541.682.5572 www.eugene-or.gov/planning FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Vacation of an Improved Easement File Name (Number): Hill Randall (VEI 22-1) Applicant: Hill/Randall, LLC Applicant's Representative: William A. Randall Lead City Staff: Nicholas Gioello, Associate Planner Phone: 541-682-5453 Email: NGioello@eugene-or.gov Relevant Dates: Application Submitted: January 26, 2022 Deemed Complete: May 13, 2022 Decision: June 27, 2022 Map No. / Tax Lots: 17-04-24-42 /02600 Location: 785 River Road Application Summary: Request to vacate a public pedestrian/bicycle easement. APPLICATION DETAILS & PROCEDURE The applicant is requesting approval to vacate a public pedestrian/bicycle path identified as the "pedestrian easement" in Attachment A, and more specifically described in the easement document 2013-016881. The easement area at issue originates from an easement in this general location that was dedicated to the City of Eugene as part of the recorded plat for the "Kungys Estates" Subdivision (City files S 94-16 and WG 94-2). The original easement area was dedicated to serve as both an access route for emergency vehicles and as a pedestrian/bicycle path. That easement area was improved in 1994 with a 12-foot wide concrete path In 2012, the applicant sought City approval of a vacation and replacement of the easement area, seeking to establish two separate easements on the subdivision site (a 20-foot emergency access easement through the center of the property and a 12-foot pedestrian/bicycle easement along the southern portion of the property). The City approved that 2012 application, vacating the original easement area and accepting in its place the new easements in the areas proposed by the applicant. The replacement easement for a pedestrian/bicycle path was then paved and continued to provide access between River Road and the Stephens Drive cul-de-sac, which June 2022 VEI 22-1 Hill Randall I Fin dings & Decision of the Planning Director Page 1 of7 Page 48 of 56 Page 49 of 56 Page 50 of 56 Page 51 of 56 Page 52 of 56 Page 53 of 56 Page 54 of 56 Page 55 of 56 Page 56 of 56