194 OWNERS HAVE SIGNED ON! LET’S GET TO 200! 

Hey folks! We can do this!

Just 6 more signatures will put us over our second goal — to DOUBLE signatures.

We reach our first goal of 100 signatures on the petition, which was submitted to the Board at their June 2oth meeting. So please “Just Do It!” (See below for the Board’s response.)

SIGN THE PETITION TO RESTORE GOLF COURSE ACCESS

It takes only 5 minutes. Please sign the petition for each of the owners individually.

https://form.jotform.com/261526036163048

Response from the SROA Board received June 29, 2026:

“On behalf of and from the Board of Directors: The SROA Board received the petition on Saturday, June 20th, and expecting a response by June 25th [the date I asked for an update on status] is not a reasonable amount of time for the Board to respond or to have discussed the matter in light of the petition.

“The Board plans to discuss this at a future board meeting. We have been looking at this in depth for several months (with the previously pending litigation affecting the Board’s ability to discuss and consider all matters related to this issue) and will not respond until we are very clear on actions we can or cannot take (and the risks associated with such), have reviewed them among the entirety of the Board, and have made a Board decision on next steps.”

90 OWNERS HAVE SIGNED ON! LET’S GET TO 100! 

Hey folks! We can do this!

Just 11 more signatures will put us over.

I firmly believe we need at least 100 signatures before submitting it to the Board. So please “Just Do It!”

SIGN THE PETITION TO RESTORE GOLF COURSE ACCESS

It takes only 5 minutes. Please sign the petition for each of the owners individually.

https://form.jotform.com/261526036163048

While this post is about a community success in Eugene, I’m sharing it as an example of what works when government and other organizations genuinely empower community-driven policy and actions.

The following was posted in the May 2026 issue of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors eNews.

Ollie Court Grand Opening Innovative Affordable Housing and Early Learning Center Opens in JWN On a sunny breezy April day city and county leaders, staff, residents, and neighbors gathered at Ollie Court for its grand opening. Ollie Court is 80 units (163 bedrooms) of affordable housing and an early learning center located on W. 14th Ave. near Chambers. Ollie Court is perfectly situated in our walkable neighborhood near schools, churches, parks, mass transit, and shopping. It has been a long process bringing this innovative project to fruition. In 2012, Paul Conte, then Chair of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN), collaborated with Richard Herman, who at the time was Executive Director of Metropolitan Affordable Housing (now Cornerstone Community Housing), to engage the community in support of a “multi-generational, family-friendly” subsidized housing project at what was known as the old Naval Reserve site. Later, JWN Chair Steven Heider fought to keep the city of Eugene from selling off that property. Fast forward to 2019, Homes for Good (HFG) Director Jacob Fox reached out to JWN Chair Ted M. Coopman about building permanent supportive housing at W. 13th Ave. and Tyler. The result was the Keystone Apartments and start of a productive relationship between HFG and the JWN. After an unsanctioned homeless camp at the old Naval Reserve site devastated the neighborhood during COVID, the JWN Board decided to revisit affordable housing at that location and began the complex process of revising the neighborhood refinement plan to allow that use. The state and local government finally caught up with the need and changed land use rules that allowed for affordable housing without changing the zoning. The JWN reached out to Homes for Good about developing the property. That discussion led to a happy stakeholder alignment. Homes for Good had been eyeing that site, and neighbors wanted the site filled, expressing a desire to see an early learning component. Early Childhood CARES, which provides early childhood special education to infants, toddlers and preschool age children and Head Start. already had began a discussion with HFG about integrating early learning and childcare in affordable housing. The JWN facilitated the public process at the Eugene Faith Center. The JWN, Eugene Faith Center, Chavez Elementary/4J, the Unitarian Universalist Church, Ward 1 City Councilor Emily Semple, and County Commissioner Laurie Treiger coordinated to support the project. The Eugene City Council approved the project with no one testifying in opposition, a tribute to good public process. Ollie Court is a major milestone in the evolution of affordable housing and providing support to families with children. The process that brought together stakeholders, especially neighbors, in addressing our city’s most pressing needs illustrates how collaboration based on mutual respect, listening to neighbors’ concerns, and getting stakeholder buy-in can deliver needed housing. Neighborhood associations like the JWN are a linchpin in this process as we are positioned to build mutual understanding as well as manage public involvement, mediate conflicts, and foster solutions via Good Neighbor Agreements like those in place for the Keystone and Ollie Court. This is how we build inclusive communities where people want to live.

Here are two resources for how another community-drive project succeeded.

Bullet lists of citizen empowerment activities.

Comprehensive report on multi-neighborhood process that received national recognition.

Compare these process to the secretive, closed-door way that the SROA Administration and Sunriver Design Committee conduct major updates to the Sunriver Rules & Regulations and the Design Manual.

Sunriver owners aren’t empowered from the very beginning of these processes. Instead, the updates are “fully-cooked” before owners even are informed about what’s proposed.

Here’s an email I sent to the Design Committee. I would encourage you to read the “red lined” version of the amended Design Manual that the committee has submitted to the SROA Board for up-or-down approval (no amendments).

From: Paul Conte <paul.t.conte@gmail.com>
To: Design Committee <designinfo@srowners.org>,
Sunriver Owners Association <infosroa@srowners.org>
CC: Jacki Bue <jackib@srowners.org>,
James Lewis <jamesl@srowners.org>
Date: May 14, 2026, 5:35 PM

Subject: Response Requested. Questions re Amended Design Manual

TO THE SUNRIVER DESIGN COMMITTEE

Submitted May 14, 2026

I am submitting the following questions regarding the recent amended Design Manual that was adopted by the Design Committee.

I would appreciate a timely and substantive response from the committee to each of the questions so that I can submit well-informed comments to the SROA Board.

Some of the questions address current criteria, which were not amended, and for which I have never received answers to the questions previously submitted. Other questions address new or changed criteria.

For questions Q1, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q11, Q17, and Q19 I would like to know these three things:

a) What problem is the rule addressing?
b) What evidence is there of the current extent of this problem, i.e., how many tallied and/or estimated cases are there where existing development and/or use is considered to have this “problem.”
c) What evidence is there of the extent of owner support or opposition, i.e., prior complaints, submitted comments, etc.?

Comment 1: Based on committee and staff statements and actions prior to adoption of the “tree-protection” criteria and following the implementation, the main purpose seems to be to control the visual impacts of fencing that is typically used to protect plants from deer, beaver, and other mammal predation and damage. The prohibition against electric and barbed-wire fencing is the only criterion for which there is evidence supporting the rule as a necessary protection for wildlife.
Q1: Why is the protection of plants limited to certain trees, and not allowed for shrubs and flowers?

Comment 2: It is very common practice to plant new trees as saplings less than 6 feet tall
Q2. Why is protection prohibited for trees less than 6 feet tall?

Q3. What is the definition of “grouping of trees”?

Q4. How is the maximum “diameter” measured for fencing that is arranged as a rectangle?

Q5. Why are white tree trunk wrappings prohibited?

Q6. Why must all “trellises” be attached and match the house color?

Comment 7: 1.01.c.2.a “All improvements shall be subordinate to the forest and the natural landscape to the maximum extent possible.

Q7a. How does an improvement become “subordinate” to a natural landscape to the maximum extent possible? Inarguably, the way a house becomes subordinate to the landscape is to be as small as practicable. From a different perspective, a structure should have differing colors as the landscape does, not be a large monochromatic item in the varied forest.
Also, “guidelines” are properly expressed with “should,” while rules are properly expressed as “shall.”

Q7b. Why shouldn’t this guideline instead be: “All improvements should be harmonious with the surrounding natural landscape to the fullest practicable extent.

Comment 8: 2.02.a and d. and Definition “Non-conforming”. These items are duplicative and inconsistent. The rule should follow the widely accepted constitutional principle that, with specific called out exceptions, any development or use that was permitted prior to a rule change is permitted (with certain conditions) to continue. The current rules have an unreasonable “Catch-22” — a prior use has to have been approved by the Design Committee, but the Community Development Department refuses to submit approval forms for development and use that is “by right.”

Q8.a. Why is there a need for the term “Nonconforming” to be in the definitions? All of the requirements should be in one place — the criteria and rules in Section 2.02.

Q8b. Why doesn’t the Design Manual implement the standard framework for permitted nonconforming development and use?

Q9. 2.04.b.1 and c, Why aren’t these sections consistent with the Consolidated Plan 8.09 Estoppel Certificate in terms of scope?

Q10. 3.02.e.c Why doesn’t the rear yard calculation explicitly take into account right-of-way areas (not just “commons”), given the long standing (and now deleted) stated purpose: “to maintain a minimum of 50 feet between structures 12 inches above grade between adjacent property to the rear”?

Q11. 3.04.6 Are all black asphalt driveways allowed? Are off-white concrete driveways allowed? What colors are allowed for paver driveways?

Q12. 3.04.b.1 Why isn’t there a clear-and-objective maximum driveway area? (See Section 3.05.a.1, as an example.) How would an owner know what is an “excessive size”?

Q13. 3.05.a.6 and 7. See Q11 and Q12.

Q14a. 3.02.a.2 What is/are the standards by which “excessively contrasting” color is evaluated? There are multiple industry and scientific standards that should be relied upon.
Q14.b … Same question for all the numerous uses of this term.

Q15a. 3.18 Why doesn’t this section have the same requirement for “Landscape” as for Driveways and Walkways, i.e., “Landscaping must comply with the Purpose & Intent as established in Section 1.01 of this Manual, at the sole discretion of the Design Committee.”

Q15b. Why are irrigated turf lawns still allowed when they are arguably neither “subordinate to” nor “harmonious with” the forest and native landscape?

Q16. 3.28.a.3 Why is a “desire” included in a set of standards? What impact would this new subsection have on application reviews?

Comment 17: 3.29.a.2, 3, and 5 The rules for trellises make no sense at all; e.g., how can a trellis be installed over the top of a deck or patio?

Q17a. Why are all trellises now required to be affixed/abut to the principle structure, installed over the top of a deck or patio.

Q17.b. Can a typical black metal trellis be placed?

Q17.c. Can a pergola be installed over a porch?

Q 18. 3.31.a.2. How would patio colors be determined to “comply” with Section 1.01. Which 1.01 provisions are specifically mandatory compliance criteria?

Q19a. 3.32.a.1 and 4 What does “viewable” mean? Visible? Something else?

Q19b. How will owners be able to select the functions and quality of speakers if they come only in black white, and faux wood?

Q20. 4.02, 5.02 Why are extensive fences allowed for commercial owners, but single-family homeowners can’t use even small amounts of fencing to protect their native shrubs and flowers? Why is the aesthetic impact completely of no concern to the Design Committee in the one case, but seems to be of utmost significance in the other?

Thank you for your careful consideration and thoughtful responses.

Paul Conte

7 & 8 McKenzie Lane

_________________

Community Associations Institute:
* CAI Certified Board Leader
Earth Advantage Accreditations:
* Sustainable Homes Professional
* Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Specialist

National Low Income Housing Coalition Member

Absurd new prohibition against protecting young trees

My message sent to the SROA Board

PLEASE READ AT THE MAY 15 WORK SESSION:
_
The Design Manual amendments adopted by the Design Committee and presented to the Board for an up-or-down vote have “buried” a new criterion for plant protections. In Appendix F, under the “TREES” category, the following addition is included:

“(Must be single stem & minimum 6ft. in height to qualify for physical protection barriers, see DCM 3.18c&d for criteria)”

On May 13, 2026, former Design Committee Chair, Richard Look, posted the following statement on Facebook:

“I can assure you that if you enclose a 3 foot newly planted aspen, no one will make you remove it.”

There is no way to interpret this statement other than that the new rule is not intended to be enforced consistently, as written. That, of course, means the rule is intended to be enforced selectively, which would patently be unlawful. Look’s injudicious statement is a fatal blow to what, in any case, is an absurd criterion.

There’s no reason at all, in fact, it’s utterly counterproductive to prohibit protection of newly planted young trees, even ones FIVE FEET tall.

Further, one of Sunriver’s two iconic native trees — Quaking Aspen — has a popular and common growth habit of a multi-trunk cluster of a single plant. This criterion would prohibit such forms, which have otherwise been allowed under existing provisions for “grouping of trees.”

Finally, regardless of its merits, such a criterion obviously belongs under Section 3.18 along with other criteria.

Contact the SROA Board ASAP and insist that this idiotic criterion be removed!

Fill out this Comment Form. Be sure to check the “Yes, please” box to get a response.

Or email the Board President, Bill Burke, at Bill Burke burke@srowners.org
Be sure to request your message be presented to the Board at the May 15th work session or May 16th meeting and that you want a response.

Some of you have already joined the private “Sunriver Golf” Facebook group that I created at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sunrivergolf4owners/

As a Facebook private group, you can post comments that are directly visible only to other members of the group.

Here’s a recent posting suggesting action to take this weekend. If every Sunriver owner reading this post would complete the “To Do” list this weekend it would have immediate and enduring effects.

#1 Submit an owner comment to the SROA Board.

Two ways to do that:

• Best option: Fill out the form at this webpage:
  https://www.sunriverowners.org/…/boa…/contact-your-board
  Be sure to enter the required fields and check these boxes:
  [ X ] General inquiry, question or concern …
  [ X ] For written inclusion into board meeting record …
  “I would like a follow-up response …”
  ( * ) Yes, please

OR

• Alternative: Send an email to this address:
  TO: infosroa@srowners.org
  CC: JamesL@srowners.org
  SUBJECT: Comment for the May 15 Board work session
  Begin the message with:
  Please read these comments at the May 15 work session and include them in the record. I would like a response.
  Dear Board Members,
  … [your message]
  Respectfully,
  [your name and Sunriver address]

Whichever approach you use, share your concerns, questions, and requests in your own words. I would suggest that you ask for explanations about what and how (and perhaps when) the Board is doing in response to the recent lawsuit by Persida Myers and why the Board apparently decided not to contest the Sunriver Resort privatization of the golf courses, even though there appears to be a perpetual easement guaranteeing owners’ access.
See the material I’ve posted on the following page if you want to reference details.
Lawsuit – SUNRIVER NEIGHBORS

Also, feel free to post questions here or send me a private message.

#2 Submit a Letter To The Editor of the Sunriver Scene

Go to this webpage for instructions.
https://www.sunriverowners.org/departments/communications

You can click on the email icon for “Berger, Susan” and fill out the form, or send an email:
TO: susanb@srowners.org
SUBJECT: Letter to the editor
Include your name, Sunriver address, phone number, and email address.
The text should be no more than 200 words.

You might reference my “Chorus of One” about the lawsuit and owners’ potential rights for access, which you can read here:
https://sunriver-scene.paperturn-view.com/may-2026…

Just speak your mind, perhaps questioning the Board’s inaction and secrecy. Feel free to point readers to this group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sunrivergolf4owners

#3 Recruit friends to subscribe to this blog and/or join the Facebook group!

Folks can subscribe to the blog by visiting:
https://sunriverneighbors.org/news/

On Facebook, we’ve got a really substantial group with 75 members already. But we want to push this over 100 or more before the end of May.

I can’t emphasize enough how important all three actions are at this juncture. Everyone here knows that the Board feels completely at ease by simply patting you on the head and ignoring you if you’re alone or only a couple other owners are with you.

But if the Board were to get scores of comments submitted before their Friday work session, you can bet they’ll pay serious attention.

Finally, some of you might wonder … “Well Paul, what if they still just brush us off?” Then … A very practical next step is an owners’ petition for a vote of SROA members directing the Board to take action to protect our right of access.

But let’s not get ahead of where we are in this campaign. First, we need to make sure the Board understands that a *lot* of owners are serious about restoring our rights.

Let’s go!