FEEDBACK FROM PETITION SIGNERS…
We have had so many people respond to the Petition link just in the short time we’ve had it on our website! THANK YOU! We are working on getting as many signed petitions, with written comments and individual letters into the Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) and LIFT HO (Home Ownership) Program by their SEPTEMBER 16th DEADLINE. This is when they STOP accepting public input before making their decision on the $8.1 MILLION DOLLARS funding paid for with our tax dollars that DevNW is requesting. Can you give your Two Cents of input please?
This is only a portion of the comments we’ve received with people’s Petitions but we still need more! It makes a very strong and persuasive message to the funders to hear message after message from a variety of people each expressing their own specific reasons for opposing this subdivision.
WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS?
— Fire Safety so close to Hendricks Park — Emergency access for Fire vehicles and egress for residents if evacuation is needed — Stress on 100 year old EWEB water mains and fire hydrant lines — NO public transportation available — Lack of convenient access to traditional grocery stores — Dependence on private vehicles for every, everyday task — A walkability score of just 11 out of 100 — Street safety for drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and wildlife — Landslide risk next to Floral Hill Drive due to significant grading for the steep slope —
People from neighborhoods all over the city have chimed in: Amazon, Cal Young, Churchill, Fairmont, and even Creswell! This is NOT a “not in my backyard” issue. It’s an issue of a poorly planned development spending millions of taxpayers dollars ($8.1 million just from ONE funder alone) for something that does not serve the population it claims to be targeting with the benefits it’s promising to provide.
Check out what people are saying below and add your own voice to the cause of doing affordable housing the right way!
People already speed down our single lane road, with no sidewalk. We requested speed bumps, but the city declined. Now you are planning on 40 more houses on Floral Hill?? We recently had a fire on Floral Hill and the fire department had a hard time getting to the fire.
KK
This development does not help the people. It says it does. It helps only the developers. It is in a high fire danger area and should not receive funding until all safety concerns have been addressed.
This proposal has been rejected three times by the Eugene of affordable housing task force it should no longer be in consideration. It is dangerous to current and future residence for various reason.
HR
I live in Creswell but I drive to Laurel Hill Valley often to work with my clients and the narrow roads can be a bear.
LM
I live on Floral Hill and it is often unsafe for walking and driving. Cars need to yield to oncoming traffic and there is no sidewalk for people and dogs to be safe. Cars drive too fast and I had a dog on a leash hit and killed two years ago in front of my house.
I’m concerned about fires in the valley and the increase of the flow of traffic in and out if there happens to be a fire. I am concerned about water run off. The valley is probably at 500ft and that water floods our yards in the winter. With more development the hardscape of streets will not allow water to absorb and we will have more flooding. I am also concerned about wildlife. Although we have the park, this meadow is home to deer, fox, bats, quail, and many other birds. I am aware of the need for housing but concerned about the number of units and cars this proposes. I wish this could be assumed by the city as a natural wildlife preserve.
CH
. Dangerous narrow road for the estimated increase of traffic
. No services
. Fire danger area
. No LTD bus, steep hill that’s hard to bike up
This development location makes no sense; no transportation service (1.5 miles away) meaning at least 80 cars added to a dark narrow roadway with no shoulders; and definitely not an ADA friendly road. The closest store is 1.5 miles away and is one of the most expensive in town. The money for these developments (which are needed!) would be better used in more accommodating locations.
MH
Democracy works from the bottom up. Not the top down. Bring back neighbors and neighborhood associations in planning policy decisions. All voices matter!
MG
This is a terrible site for the DEVNW development. Steep slope, no sidewalks, narrow windy road, no bus, no school, no shops. Certainly there are better places.
KG
The irony is that this development will increase the need for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. This expense to some homeowners in the valley will be enough to make their homes unaffordable. On top of the expense of the improvements many homeowners will have to reconfigure their driveways to meet the new widened road, as in many areas the grade will be drastically altered.
EH
I’ve lived on Riverview 30+ years. I am strongly against this particular project for the obvious problems with Floral Hill already unsafe for two people going in opposite directions while driving. I can’t imagine the issue for emergency vehicles, buses, bicyclists and pedestrians. It’s nuts, in my opinion.
CV
Affordable Housing should be in neighborhoods where the cost of living is affordable. In Floral Hill owners will need vehicles since public transportation is not nearby and the bipedal locomotion options of walking and cycling to employment are not practical. Purchasing fuel, insurance and budgeting for repairs is expensive, not to mention the initial outlay of funds to purchase a vehicle or two vehicles for most home owners. Let’s find a location that makes living affordable not just housing affordable!
RM
Floral Hill is not the right place for this development. If the developers were planning ahead, they shouldn’t have planned this without access from Riverview Street, which is safer and makes more sense. A jump off the hill at Floral Hill Drive is not safe for traffic. Also, it is dangerous to route more traffic through Hendricks Park. The cars won’t stay at 10 mph.
MC
Aside from directing traffic down the difficult path that is 19th Street, where students don’t believe in looking up from their phones before crossing or down Fairmount, Orchard or Walnut Streets! Floral Hill Drive already has only an 11 out of 100 walkability rating and runs through the largest park in the city, where people often amble about in the street rather than on the paths. It’s a dangerous idea for both Floral Hill residents and the Fairmount neighborhood.
CS
I have looked at this site again and again and it clearly makes no sense to me. It is a dangerous narrow road, no sidewalks and no public transport. When developing on such a narrow road the city should have been required to widen the road with approval of a bond measure BEFORE this development was proposed. It is time to shut it down and prepare for this another way or invest in an area that has public transport and safe roads.
AS
This location is wrong for many reasons. There is no bus service, there are no close shops of any kind, there are no sidewalks on the narrow road serving the development, it is on a steep slope, traffic will all go through Hendricks Park, fire danger is very real.
Please reconsider the location of this project.
KF
The surrounding infrastructure (narrow, curving roads, inappropriate for widening) will not support this project. Adding a multi-unit development of this size would invite further projects that transportation services, emergency access and public transportation are unable to address.
WS
As a resident of the Laurel Hill Valley I have significant concerns regarding the DevNW Housing development proposed for Floral Hill Drive.
Please understand that I absolutely support affordable housing and understand that there is a great need in our community. However, the proposed location on Floral Hill Drive is unsuitable and in fact, potentially dangerous, for this development.
Floral Hill Drive is winding and narrow without sidewalks or shoulders making it unsafe for walkers and bicyclists. The proposed area for development lacks easy access to grocery stores and has no public transportation. As well, access for emergency fire vehicles and potential need for evacuation of residents in the event of a fire is extremely limited.
I urge our government officials to continue to focus attention and resources on provision of safe and affordable housing for residents of the Eugene community. However, please Do Not support the funding of this unsafe proposed development.
EF
I want to like this but the neighborhood can’t accommodate that much new traffic and there is no public transportation in the area making it harder especially if it’s for affordable housing. I’d love more family housing especially feeding into Edison elementary but I feel it needs to be where it can be supported.
AW
I am strongly opposed to the proposed high-density development in the Laurel Hill neighborhood. The scale and density of this project are fundamentally incompatible with the existing character and infrastructure of the neighborhood and would place an unreasonable burden on an area that was not designed to accommodate this level of development.
Laurel Hill has limited access points in and out of the neighborhood, and its streets and roadways already serve substantial numbers of pedestrians, walkers, runners, and cyclists of all ages. Critically, the neighborhood lacks adequate sidewalks and dedicated pedestrian pathways to safely accommodate a significant increase in daily foot and bicycle traffic. Adding a large number of new residents to this environment would inevitably increase conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists and create a serious safety concern.
This issue is particularly important for the many elderly residents who routinely walk throughout the neighborhood, often once or twice each day. These residents should not be expected to navigate substantially increased traffic and congestion on streets that lack the pedestrian infrastructure necessary to provide a safe environment. The same concerns apply to children, families, runners, and cyclists who currently use these streets.
Responsible development should take into account not only the number of housing units that can technically be placed on a site, but also whether the surrounding neighborhood has the infrastructure, roadway capacity, pedestrian facilities, and overall character necessary to support that level of density. In this case, the proposed density appears to be driven by what can be built on the property rather than by what is appropriate and sustainable for the neighborhood.
A much more reasonable approach would be to limit new development to a scale and density that are consistent with the existing Laurel Hill neighborhood, including its established architectural patterns, street configuration, and residential character. Growth can and should occur, but it should be compatible with the community in which it is being introduced.
I respectfully urge the City of Eugene to reject the proposed density of this development and require a substantially reduced project that is consistent with the existing neighborhood and, most importantly, does not compromise the safety and livability of the people who already live here.
PM
This development would increase the high risk hazard for drivers and pedestrians, absolutely! I regularly drive to this neighborhood to see friends and my partner, and it is quite nerve racking to drive either of the roads that access this neighborhood. The road from Hendricks Park, in particular, is very narrow and twisty, with multiple blind spots. I hope it doesn’t take a serious injury or accident to highlight the hazards of this area to those would allow profiteers further housing development in this neighborhood, all in the name of “affordable housing”.
JH
Add your voice to ours!
