Scroll down, or click on a specific author:
Tyler Smails
Helen Rosenau
Anonymous
Debbie Drogichen Hoernig
Lisa Kaye
April 25, 2026
To: the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee
From: Tyler Smails
Back to Top
I am a resident of Floral Hill Dr and I am writing to oppose the award of AHTF funds to the DevNW Floral Hill CLT project. I support affordable housing in Eugene. My opposition is solely to this site.
DevNW’s own application tells the story:
- The project carries a Walk Score of 11.
- The nearest bus stop is 1.4 miles away.
- The nearest grocery store is 1.5 miles.
By the developer’s own admission, residents will rely almost entirely on personal vehicles — on a narrow residential lane with no sidewalks, no shoulders, and no documented emergency vehicle access plan.
If decision makers have not yet, I would highly encourage a drive down Floral Hill drive. You’ll quickly see why a large housing development is unsuitable for this road.
The application also discloses wetlands requiring Army Corps permitting and a $20,000 budget line for a geotechnical report that has not yet been completed. The steep forested hillside above Floral Hill Drive presents real landslide risk if upslope soils are disturbed by road grading or utility work — and that risk has not been characterized. Public funds should not be committed before it is.
This is the third consecutive year DevNW has applied for AHTF funding for this project. It was denied in 2024, received a partial award of $200,000 in 2025 (vs. $600,000 requested), and is now back for the remaining $400,000.
In that same period, total project cost has grown from $19.2 million to $21.7 million — with $8.12 million in state LIFT funds still only a “soft commitment” and the HIFP infrastructure contract not yet executed.
I ask the committee to withhold funding until all of the following occurs:
(1) a completed geotechnical assessment is available for public review;
(2) Public Works and Eugene Fire provide written confirmation of road and emergency access adequacy; and
(3) the LIFT and HIFP commitments are fully executed.
I also ask the committee to put this question directly to DevNW: given the safety, infrastructure, poor walkability, and geological concerns this site presents, has the organization evaluated selling the property and redirecting proceeds toward a site better suited to serve families?
Regardless of how much DevNW wants to make it happen, the truth is, without millions of dollars of additional infrastructure; including tree removal, road widening, sidewalk implementation, etc. this location is simply not a good fit for this housing project.
Thank you for your consideration,
Tyler Smails
April 27, 2026
To: Affordable Housing Trust Fund
From: Helen Rosenau
Back to Top
Dear Affordable Housing Funders:
I’ve been a resident of Riverview St in Laurel Hill Valley (LHV), east Eugene, for more than forty years. I have seen the valley change and grow, and I want to be explicitly clear: I support affordable housing, and I’m not reflexively anti-development.
That said, I’m writing to oppose the award of any AHTF or other public/taxpayer funds to the DevNW Floral Hill project. My opposition is not to the concept, but rather to this very inappropriate proposed location.
Be very clear, this is far more than a zoning issue on a specific site. It’s about how the valley will grow and how our tax dollars are being used.
The agency focus should be on the needs of low-income residents, not subsidizing DevNW’s costs to build the project in the wrong site.
There are many reasons why this project should never go forward on this site:
· Lack of access to services: In DevNW’s own application the project carries a Walk Score of 11. The nearest bus stop is 1.4 miles away. The nearest grocery store is 1.5 miles (a holistic, organic specialty store). That is a burden for low-income people without cars.
· Transportation and Traffic: There is no LTD service. Residents of up to 42 new homes will rely on personal vehicles, on a narrow residential lane with no sidewalks, no shoulders. Fair housing guidelines would allow up to seven people per 3br/ba and five per 2 bd/ba. Even assuming some car-pooling, that virtually doubles traffic on Riverview alone.
· Geotechnical concerns: Much of LHV is built on fill land. There are also underground springs. Even the developer’s application discloses wetlands requiring Army Corps permitting and a $20,000 budget for an as-yet-uncompleted geotechnical report. There have been well-publicized stories of houses sliding down the hillside in LHV. The steep forested hillside to the west presents landslide risk if upslope soils are disturbed by road grading or utility work. A full EIS should be required before any application is approved.
· Fire and Safety issues: The streets and blind curves are already troublesome for emergency vehicles. There is no documented emergency vehicle access plan. There is no evidence that Public Works and/or Eugene Fire have provided written confirmation of road and emergency access adequacy.
· Inappropriate use of taxpayer money: These homes are being marketed as affordable home ownership for low-income purchasers. But that feels like false advertising, as buyers will not own the land under their homes, which stays with the community land trust. There is a monthly Ground Use Fee (aka an HOA fee), and a cap on future sale value which limits equity building, plus a portion of profit must be paid to the community land trust. There are also intrinsic issues about who pays for maintenance and repairs.
It’s not really home ownership; it’s a taxpayer subsidy to a development corporation using the right buzzwords.
Summary: It’s the wrong project for this location. These lots should be developed as traditional homes, per the LHV Plan, with traditional home ownership of both lot and land, and even then, only after appropriate geotechnical and traffic studies. Using taxpayer funds to subsidize such a clearly one-sided project is highly inappropriate. Please help DevNW do good not harm; help them identify a better site that would be near services and actually help low-income residents.
Thanks for your rigorous evaluation of these concerns. Your stewardship of limited public funding is critical.
Helen Rosenau
Back to Top
May 1, 2026
Posting for a friend not on Laurel Hill Valley’s Facebook page who wishes to be anonymous:
Back to Top
Dear AHTF Committee Members:
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Housing DevN/W Floral Hill Terrace, planned for about 40 homes in between the SE end of Floral Hill Drive and Riverview Street.
While Eugene needs more affordable housing, not every site available is appropriate and safe for a development of such magnitude.
For the past 48 years, I have been a resident on Riverview St. in Laurel Hill Valley.
Like many of my neighbors, old and young, I chose to live in LHV because it is different from most other Eugene neighborhoods.
As one of one of the oldest neighborhoods, LHV is a historic treasure that should be cherished rather than destroyed. It is eclectic in nature with homes from being old, small and affordable to newer, modern and expensive. Some are built on large acreage while others are barely surrounded by property.
Laurel Hill Valley is:
* A separate, contained valley with natural borders that has neither stores, pubs, restaurants nor public transportation;
* It has rolling hills with mature trees;
* It is strictly residential and family oriented;
* School buses, delivery, garbage trucks and emergency vehicles, share the narrow streets with lots of wildlife, people of all ages on bikes, walking or jogging;
* With the exception of Augusta Street, LHV’s core is defined by narrow streets such as Floral Hill Dr., Riverview St. and Sylvan St. that are bordered by homes on either side; all three streets are only 17’ wide, with little or no room on either side; given the hilly terrain and the layout of the neighborhood, it would be impossible to adequately retrofit the above-mentioned streets.
People who live here come from a variety of backgrounds in regards to age, socio-economic status and culture.
Most of us pride ourselves in being inclusive, thriving on diversity and all along, have actively supported affordable housing.
Some of us have lived here for years while others have moved here more recently. We have a mixture of homeowners and renters.
Over the years, we have embraced new developments that were built on open, adjacent land at the south (Hendricks Hill) and at the east (Moon Mt. and East Ridge Village) edges of Laurel Hill Valley.
My opposition to the proposed Development NW is based on:
* Its incompatibility in regards to location and size; about 40 houses squeezed in between existing homes, on a sloping site; way too many (documented landslide risk and liability issues);
* The entrance/exit from the development would be to a 17 ft wide, two-way street with a blind curve close by; totally unsafe for everyone!
* A big increase in traffic on Floral Hill Dr. and Riverview St. during and after construction;
* Additionally, environmental concerns and potential financial impact on homeowners, especially those living on Floral Hill Dr. and Riverview St..
Thank you for taking my concerns and those expressed by other neighbors, seriously.
Your decision is critical!
Anonymous
Back to Top
May 8, 2026
To: Affordable Housing Trust Fund
From: Debbie Drogichen Hoernig
Back to Top
- I have lived on Floral Hill Drive for 30 years. Many of my Laurel Hill Valley neighbors have written to you to oppose permit approval of the DevNW Floral Hill CLT project. I’ve read their letters, join them in opposition, and endorse the points made by Helen Rosenau, Tyler Smail and Lisa Kaye, inter alia. With respect for your time as well as a trust that all of our opinions will be considered, I will make this note brief. I’m writing to add a little more detail to the picture to help you better understand the harm your approval of this development would cause for both existing residents and prospective ones, and why many of us oppose it. In truth, it appears that the only party involved who wouldn’t be harmed is DevNW.
- Floral Hill Drive, the road on which the proposed development would be constructed, is approximately 0.8 miles long. It’s a 17-foot-wide slightly winding road, with a north-south (N-S) segment joining an east-west (E-W) segment at a 90-degree blind curve. The proposed development would be built on the N-S segment. Because that segment was built along one side of Laurel Hill Valley, the land slopes significantly upward on one side while dropping significantly downward on the other, making the installation of sidewalks on most of the length of either side of the road seriously problematic. Further complicating the installation of sidewalks is that parts of both sides of the road are within Lane County’s jurisdiction and not the city’s. This road has never had sidewalks. We depend on common courtesy as our principal traffic control device. Most of the time it works. We already know that it doesn’t work when people are distracted or in a hurry, or during extraordinary times of relatively heavy traffic egress from Hendricks Park, like we see now only during the annual Mothers Day weekend or other rare special events. Between 2-way car traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians, this rural road already probably functions at maximum safety capacity. Added vehicle traffic from an increase of 40 households, creating intermittent relatively heavy traffic conditions, will jeopardize this; i.e., it will jeopardize all of our safety.
- Consider further that there are now 70 unevenly-spaced residential structures along both sides of this 0.8 mile (4,225 feet) road; each side has approximately half that total (35). Adding 40 households along Floral Hill Drive would be a 57% increase. Further, the frontage of the 2 lots on which DevNW proposes to build these 40 residences is 463 feet. Put simply, the proposed development would more than double the number of dwellings on the affected side of Floral Hill Road, and do so on little more than a tenth of the length of the road. This would be – literally – a shocking addition as well as an incongruous concentration in an already established neighborhood. The initial construction-related dirt and noise disruption (one year? two?) will be followed by the permanently ongoing additional normal everyday noise of 40 more households in a valley where sound carries well.
- You, the AHTF (and DevNW) already know the poor public transportation accessibility score (11 out of 100) the proposed development site has received. DevNW has already failed its prospective clientele by stubbornly pursuing a project that would pretty much necessitate automobile ownership, and the added ongoing maintenance costs it would entail for residents whose required maximum household income is already restricted. Had DevNW done its homework, it would have found the more appropriate existing sites that aren’t burdened by this inherent handicap.
This brings me back to a question I asked this office 2 years ago: Why in the world would the City of Eugene want to facilitate even more cars on the roads here, in the first place? And the logical next question: How else is DevNW failing its prospective clientele, as well as the community from which it seeks permission to build? - It’s a given that Eugene needs more affordable housing. I have no doubt that in the coming years our neighborhood will expand and its density will increase, just as the rest of Eugene has. That’s a natural progression in almost every community. Most of the time it happens at a pace such that the existing communities can absorb the growth in a healthy manner. This proposed development would not.
- A few of our neighbors think this development is a good idea. Helping to provide housing for underserved people is certainly a virtuous and personally satisfying goal. I would remind them – and you – that the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions. In addition to the supposed benefits this project might achieve, consider the real and permanent harm to the people who already live here that you’d be enabling by approving this application.
Respectfully submitted…
Debbie Drogichen Hoernig
Back to Top
May 8, 2026
To: Affordable Housing Trust Fund Advisory Committee
From: Lisa Kaye
Back to Top
Re: Input on Affordable Housing Trust Fund Request:
I live in the Laurel Hill Valley Community and wish to respond to several points in the Floral Hill Affordable Housing Proposal.
“8. For new construction and rehabilitation projects, at least 5% of units must be accessible to persons with mobility challenges (such as using a wheelchair) and sensory challenges (such as blindness or deafness).”
This development only provides the BARE MINIMUM of TWO homes fully ADA compatible for persons with mobility challenges. That is not a worthwhile investment of the $600,000 DevNW has requested for this project over the past two proposal cycles ($200,000 last year and $400,000 this year).
Some of the other proposals would seem to give you a better return on AHTF investment by impacting more people at a higher level of need for your fund’s target population.
DevNW: “In addition, accessible sidewalks from the top of Floral Hill to the end of the new public road will provide a continuous, barrier free route across the site, allowing residents and visitors using mobility aids to move safely and independently.”
This misses the fact that the entire length of Floral Hill Drive except for the frontage sidewalk does NOT have mobility-friendly access. This development will isolate people needing mobility aids without access to safe roads or public transportation to get in and out of this development.
Project Concept and Design
11. Provide a detailed description of the development proposal, including description of the existing site, proposed design, unit interiors, plan for construction/ rehabilitation, and/or other improvements. Please attach any preliminary drawings and site plans for the propose development Attachment A.
DevNW: “proposes Floral Hill CLT (Community Land Trust), a thoughtfully designed 40 home, family friendly neighborhood in Eugene’s well-connected and desirable Laurel Hill Valley area.”
The Laurel Hill Valley is NOT WELL-CONNECTED to anywhere in the Eugene area. It has a walkability score of 11 OUT OF 100. This is not serving the population you are targeting. There are NO access points to major road ways that connect to main transportation corridors. There are no public transportation services here. Transportation to workplaces, schools, groceries, stores etc… are all by individual vehicles along one or two access points to the valley.
“The 3.89 acre site”
This site was originally OVER 4 ACRES which would have placed it in the guidelines for Middle Housing to accommodate no more than 4 homes. This is a density that fits in well with the Laurel Hill Valley existing streets which are classified as rural roads and would not create difficulties for traffic impacts, street safety, community evacuations in case of fire, and reduced fire risk right next to the huge forested acreage of Hendricks Park.
At the beginning of this year a fraction of an acre was removed from the original plot when it was sold to DevNW which caused it to be reclassified to accommodate 40 homes. I am bad at math but I thought this was like a 100% increase in the size of the project but in Googling this to check it out it is a 900% INCREASE in the number of homes that are now being planned.
“12. Please describe how the housing, on-site amenities, or any project characteristics address special needs of the population you intend to serve.”
DevNW: “DevNW has designed this neighborhood to meet the real needs of low-income families with children, households with mobility needs, and communities underrepresented in homeownership.”
This is a great goal but creating a development that is not served by public transportation, has a very low walkability score with no access to groceries or schools except by vehicle is not serving your stated target buyers.
Creating a development that is in a safe location with proper access to public safety services seems like it should be a priority in trying to serve this vulnerable community needing affordable housing. This choice of location is problematic because it is in a high fire danger area according to the Fire Department and has very problematic access on our narrow and very curvy rural road for Fire Vehicles.
Having so many residential units compressed together in such a small footprint raises the risk of fires, regardless of building materials, that can quickly spread to the forest just on the other side of Floral Hill Drive.
Adding an additional 100 vehicles to our narrow rural roads from this one development more than doubles our estimates of current vehicles in this part of the neighborhood.
Our Fire Department already has a difficult time getting into our interior areas where the development is slated to be built due to our rural road on Floral Hill Drive. Combine that with a flow of evacuation traffic and we have a disaster in the making. The Fire Department is already saying it is a matter of when, not if, we have a fire that affects the Hendricks Park area.
“13. Please describe any innovative characteristics or added benefits that will be incorporated into the development through project design, financing, and management structure (examples are described in the RFP criteria).”
I’m not convinced about the CLT (Community Land Trust) affordability model. The primary security builder in real estate is the increasing value of the property. The reason people invest in their property is to maintain its value and desirability. The fact that home owners are required to do their own maintenance and have little oversight about community norms is a weakness not a strength. I would like to know how this pans out for developments after 10 years? After 20 years? How is the valuation for sales doing over the test of time. Do you have other example of the track record for this model?
I’m also skeptical about what I’ve read concerning restricting occupancy to owners, not renters. If there is no property manager on site, who is to know if an owner is renting out their property or what rent they are charging to ensure it stays within the Affordable Housing criteria? Or what if someone gets transferred and moves out of state for a set time? Are you going to tell them they cannot rent out their own home? In your other CLT type projects how is this handled?
“14. On-site parking: How many parking spaces will be provided for the development?
DevNW: “Floral Hill CLT will provide 100 parking spaces. Each of the 40 homes includes a private garage and driveway, together accommodating two vehicles per home for a total of 80 private parking spaces. An additional 20 parallel parking spaces will be provided along one side of the development’s private and public streets, bringing the total to 100 spaces.”
The fact that garages and driveways are provided which handles 2 cars each house is wonderful but having only 20 additional parking spaces is still inadequate if you are building a total of 116 bedrooms in the complex. Legally a 3 bedroom house can have up to 7 adults and a 2 bedroom house can have up to 5 adults living there. This is being marketed as a multi-generational affordable housing opportunity. Indeed it sounds like that is what you are planning for. The odds are that it will best serve multi-person households, more than just 2 people. Twenty extra spaces means 1/2 a space extra for each unit. It means half of the homes can have one guest or one extra driver.
What about family gatherings since this is planned as such a family friendly place? What about when your 18 year old starts going to LCC and needs to drive there because there is no bus service here? Or your 17 year old gets a job and needs to be able to drive to it? What about if someone wants to have a garage sale to make a little extra money?
The Oak Creek Apartments have a large parking lot to accommodate their tenants but they also have street parking along both sides of Augusta which is a wide feeder street for our neighborhood with calming speed bumps to accommodate the extra traffic.
Floral Hill Drive can not function that way. There is NO place to park along Floral Hill Drive because of drainage ditch on west side and drop off due to slope on the east side. Overflow cars will create even more dangerous road conditions for walkers, runners and bicyclists as well as other cars.
It is a very unsafe location for residents of the complex to try to turn onto Floral Hill Drive on a blind curve. Residents on Floral Hill already have challenges getting out of their driveways! What will it be like for the morning going-to-work traffic for 50+ cars?
For all these reasons please invest in one of the other projects that will better serve the community you are proposing to support.
Lisa Kaye
Back to Top
