[FoE-D] Forward of moderated message
Lisa Warnes
lisawarnes at efn.org
Thu May 6 12:21:10 PDT 2010
I have not seen any maps regarding any possible redevelopment or
expansion of the UGB and I am on the Planning Commission.
Lisa
On May 6, 2010, at 7:21 AM, foe_members-bounces at friendsofeugene.org
wrote:
>
> From: Mary <mvtegel at gmail.com>
> Date: May 5, 2010 3:12:25 PM PDT
> To: "foe_members at friendsofeugene.org"
> <foe_members at friendsofeugene.org>
> Subject: Re: foe_members Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2
>
>
> It is a shame that, according to posts here, that the planning
> department's format has a limited outlook. Question for those of
> you who attended, is the department looking at brownfields?
>
> Mary
>
> ====================
> Mary Tegel
> hands on impresario
> intern in architecture
> Tegel Design + Planning
> ====================
>
> On May 5, 2010, at 11:13 AM, foe_members-
> request at friendsofeugene.org wrote:
>
>> Send foe_members mailing list submissions to
>> foe_members at friendsofeugene.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://www.designcommunity.com/mailman/listinfo/foe_members
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> foe_members-request at friendsofeugene.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> foe_members-owner at friendsofeugene.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of foe_members digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Envison Eugene [was RE: [NLC] Important City meetings (and
>> the mixed-use option)] (Shawn Boles)
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 10:57:24 -0700
>> From: Shawn Boles <shawn at ori.org>
>> Subject: [FoE-M] Envison Eugene [was RE: [NLC] Important City
>> meetings
>> (and the mixed-use option)]
>> To: "'Paul Conte'" <pconte at picante-soft.com>, Kevin Matthews
>> <matthews at artifice.com>
>> Cc: Eugene Council <mayorandcc at ci.eugene.or.us>, 'MCRAE Matt A'
>> <matt.a.mcrae at ci.eugene.or.us>, NLC
>> <nlc at eugeneneighbors.org>, WEISS
>> Carolyn J <Carolyn.J.Weiss at ci.eugene.or.us>, Jon Ruiz
>> <Jon.R.Ruiz at ci.eugene.or.us>, SEN Members
>> <members at southeastneighbors.org>, FoE Members
>> <foe_members at friendsofeugene.org>, GARDNER Lisa A
>> <Lisa.A.Gardner at ci.eugene.or.us>
>> Message-ID:
>> <2D03CD740899554D884FCF78BD8DCBCC12E9706905 at Exmail1.ori-
>> eug.ori.org>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> Hi All:
>>
>> I attended the 7-9 pm EE meeting at the Conference Center last
>> night and found it deeply disappointing. The setting
>> presentations were weak and the table exercises, while potentially
>> useful, failed in that the staff took NO notes of any of the
>> points raised. At a minimum I would have expected to have some
>> information about the results of our past 20 year efforts to make
>> Eugene more livable while accommodating more residents. If the
>> object was to inform the citizens as to what has worked or not
>> worked in the past and to listen to new ideas, it was an abject
>> failure.
>>
>> Finally, the whole event essentially ignored the energy and
>> climate challenges that are all too real factors influencing the
>> decisions we make with respect to land use, especially use of our
>> precious agricultural lands.
>>
>> This is sad. I had hoped we might do better.
>>
>> I agree with Paul Conte's analysis, below.
>>
>> Shawn Boles.
>>
>> From: foe_members at friendsofeugene.org
>> [mailto:foe_members at friendsofeugene.org] On Behalf Of Paul Conte
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 12:40 PM
>> To: Kevin Matthews
>> Cc: Eugene Council; NLC; WEISS Carolyn J; Jon Ruiz; SEN Members;
>> FoE Members; GARDNER Lisa A
>> Subject: Re: [FoE-M] [NLC] Important City meetings (and the mixed-
>> use option)
>>
>> [Kevin would you please forward my response to listservs that I'm
>> not able to post to. Thank-you.]
>>
>> I'm in fundamental agreement with Kevin's point about a "third
>> way," which is that we can do much better than considering only a
>> blanket ramping up numerical densities in zoning code (as seems to
>> already be under consideration by staff) and/or or blowing out the
>> UGB and using exurban lands as thoughtlessly as we've done in
>> recent history.
>>
>> My attempt to boil things down, and my haste in posting so as to
>> urge participation in tonight's meetings, led to some confusion.
>>
>> For the first of the two Council alternatives, I meant "increase
>> overall density within the UGB". The two options I listed were
>> just to clarify the mathematical reality, nothing more. (You
>> either put more dwellings in the same area, add more area, or some
>> combination.)
>>
>> Increasing overall density within the UGB could be done as Kevin
>> suggests and through other sensible approaches, such as a properly
>> implemented "Opportunity Sting" program.
>>
>> And the point of the fundamental growth management principle I
>> proposed was that we must not accept simplistic, "take your
>> medicine for the good of the community/planet" policy or code
>> changes that would both degrade our neighborhoods (and city) and,
>> in the end, be counterproductive to wise land use (since
>> economically mobile households will simply move to nearby
>> communities more distant from our urban center).
>>
>> Referencing the Mayor's reply to Kevin ... From discussions with
>> the Mayor, I think she agrees and supports this principle, and I
>> read her comments as mainly suggesting we not limit ourselves to
>> just a single proposed strategy that follows this principle, which
>> is a sensible starting point.
>>
>> I do take gentle issue with the Mayor's comment that: "This should
>> be a conversation about what we would like, not what we are afraid
>> of (although getting those on the table is helpful)."
>>
>> A substantial reason many of our neighborhoods are in the mess
>> they're in is because the former community process produced a set
>> of aspirational "Growth Management Policies" that are so ambiguous
>> they are practically useless for real guidance. The code that came
>> out of that process; however, is very concrete and is a disaster
>> -- allowing all kinds of incompatible development justified by
>> increasing density, and providing no standards to assure
>> neighborhoods aren't degraded or destabilized by infill and
>> redevelopment.
>>
>> As in any successful relationship or social contract,
>> understanding what isn't acceptable and where the boundaries lie
>> are as essential as understanding the parties' aspirations. And
>> this part of the discussion requires more than a perfunctory tip
>> of the hat by staff managing the "Envision Eugene" process.
>>
>> I'm not "afraid" that at the end of properly conducted "Envision
>> Eugene," City Council will adopt policy and code changes that
>> would harm neighborhoods, because if the process is properly
>> conducted, it will be clear that the overwhelming majority of
>> Eugene residents do not believe neighborhoods should be sacrificed
>> to achieve higher density. (I also believe a majority of Eugene
>> residents are willing to be part of a neighborhood-based approach
>> to identifying where and how higher-density development can occur
>> in a way that will be a benefit to the neighborhood community.
>> This is what the lagging "Opportunity Siting" program is supposed
>> to provide.)
>>
>> My concern is that City staff are unprepared and not adequately
>> trained or experienced to manage the complex "Envision Eugene"
>> process effectively, especially under the demanding time
>> constraints. A major element of my concern is that -- after two
>> years as a very active member of the ECLA CAC -- I became firmly
>> convinced that neither City staff nor the paid consultants have
>> adequate training and experience to provide essential quantitative
>> assessments of policy impacts that the community can rely on to
>> make well-informed, concrete choices with respect to changes in
>> policy, code and/or the UGB. Despite all the upbeat talk, we are
>> going to be winging it, I'm afraid.
>>
>> Therefore, I think a necessary strategy for neighborhood advocates
>> is to enlist their communities to establish unequivocally one or
>> more new growth management policies that assure no other actions
>> arising from Envision Eugene will harm our neighborhoods.
>>
>> My hope is that, even if we don't get it right, we won't make the
>> gross mistakes of the last decade or so and exacerbate the damage
>> to neighborhoods, which are the fundamental building blocks of a
>> community.
>>
>> Hope to see many of you tonight.
>>
>> -- Paul
>> ________________________________
>>
>> At 10:06 AM 5/4/2010, Kevin Matthews wrote:
>>
>> Dear Friends and Neighbors,
>>
>> Paul makes a very timely plea for participation in the Envision
>> Eugene process. I couldn't agree more - this is important stuff!
>>
>> However, I think the framing of our choices in his note (below),
>> while traditional and well-established, is simply too narrow.
>> And, if unchallenged, this narrow view will set us up for a
>> classic divide-and-fail scenario within Eugene's progressive
>> community. That's good for no one.
>>
>> Paul says, in his message below, that our choice for growth boils
>> down to these two options:
>>
>> - Increase residential density
>> - Expand the UGB
>>
>> If those were the only options, then from a neighborhood and
>> environmental perspective, it boils down to choosing between bad
>> and worse.
>>
>> Fortunately, there is a third choice, just a little outside the
>> box, which is actually a GOOD option:
>>
>> - Intensive mixed-use redevelopment in existing commercially-zoned
>> areas
>>
>> How would this third option work? Why is it so fundamentally
>> different?
>>
>> In the big picture, the two classic UGB options both tend to make
>> Eugene worse as it grows, either by degrading our neighborhoods,
>> or by gobbling up the surrounding countryside - or potentially
>> both. Paul's strong concerns about the destabilizing impact of
>> the traditional infill-infill-infill approach are very well founded.
>>
>> The mixed-use option, in contrast, can actually help Eugene get
>> better as we grow up.
>>
>> Heresy? No, really, it's just good integrated planning, taking
>> into account all our contemporary issues. Intensive mixed-use
>> redevelopment is a way for us to grow "up-not-out", while still
>> preserving our established neighborhoods.
>>
>> The mixed-use option also helps preserve housing choices, by
>> protecting the irreplaceable value of our beautiful and beloved
>> established traditional neighborhoods - and by protecting our
>> remaining natural areas, both inside and outside the UGB - while
>> providing the increasing amount of high-quality multi-family
>> housing, of various types, that our changing community
>> demographics actually call for.
>>
>> Our existing commercially-zoned areas in Eugene are largely
>> occupied by utilitarian single-story buildings surrounded by
>> extensive surface parking - representing very low densities of
>> use. As such, these core commercial areas represent the single
>> largest land bank available, in the right places, to accommodate
>> projected growth.
>>
>> Replacing a cheap building in a big parking lot, creating a new
>> mixed-use building with ground floor commercial (offices,
>> services, retail) and quality condominiums or apartments upstairs,
>> tends to improve the livability of the surrounding area, in terms
>> of walkability, support for neighborhood services, and even the
>> visual image of the streetscape - at the same time as it
>> dramatically increases density of use.
>>
>> It's really not rocket science. The idea is that Eugene could
>> grow its core areas into a more European, naturally denser, more
>> lively and economically robust community. Needing less driving,
>> easier to get around with walking, transit, and bicycling, more
>> efficient in our use of tax-payer provided infrastructure and
>> services.
>>
>> Friends of Eugene released a white paper last year that goes into
>> more detail on how the mixed-use option can work:
>> http://www.friendsofeugene.org/files/FoE_White_Paper-
>> Infill_and_Climate_Change.pdf
>>
>> Lots of details need to be done right, as in any growth scenario,
>> for mixed-use redevelopment to work, and to work well. Protection
>> of adjacent neighborhoods is fundamental and essential, as is
>> beefed-up historic preservation, planning and development of
>> additional parks to support additional density, and so on. The
>> housing construction industry needs real help to adapt to these
>> new community needs.
>>
>> But the basic thrust of the mixed-use growth option is positive,
>> while the basic thrust of each of the two standard options is
>> negative.
>>
>> The divergence between the options is especially clear in terms of
>> combating climate change - in terms of integrated planning to
>> reduce our community carbon footprint.
>>
>> Increasing residential density across the city simply packs in
>> more people and houses, gradually adding traffic and congestion,
>> without helping the basic outmoded structure of how we get from
>> here to there, spread out and heavily dependent on private
>> vehicles. This option would tend to gradually increase the
>> transportation climate footprint of our community.
>>
>> Expanding the UGB is even worse, in terms of climate change. By
>> adding our growth at the farthest distances from the urban core,
>> this option would tend to sharply increase the transportation
>> climate footprint of our community (see white paper for details).
>>
>> In terms of climate change, in other words, the traditional
>> approach gives us two bad options.
>>
>> However, mixed-use redevelopment will help to gradually reduce the
>> transportation climate footprint of our community, because our
>> existing commercially-zoned areas are concentrated in the inner
>> half of the UGB area, and even outside the core, generally along
>> potential transit corridors. Concentrating our residential growth
>> into these areas will tend to reduce car-dependency, enhancing
>> walking, bicycling, and transit use (see white paper for more
>> detail).
>>
>> The mixed-use option provides exactly the kind of positive climate
>> solution we need!
>>
>> To Paul's credit, it appears that the City planning staff have
>> been focusing in Envision Eugene to date on the traditional two
>> option, bad-or-worse approach. The survey recently done by City
>> staff on "land use efficiency measures," for instance, seemed to
>> be stuck solidly inside that box. I'm not trying to beat up City
>> staff, who are facing a tall challenge. I'm just trying to
>> illustrate how the Eugene community needs to participate, and
>> needs to help widen the conversation, to reach a wide enough scope
>> that a win-win solution is actually possible.
>>
>> As a leader in our community around progressive planning, and in
>> wider circles, around architecture and climate change, I see truly
>> great potential (despite the harsh challenge of an absurdly short
>> timeline) for the Envision Eugene process to help us get to a
>> better place together.
>>
>> City staff and City Council alike need intelligent, active,
>> critical, and supportive participation from each of us, to be able
>> to get this worked out right.
>>
>> The future of Eugene is at stake.
>>
>> with all best wishes,
>>
>> Kevin Matthews
>> Southeast Neighbors
>> Friends of Eugene
>> ArchitectureWeek
>> --
>> http://www.FriendsofEugene.org<http://www.friendsofeugene.org/>
>> http://www.eugeneneighbors.org/wiki/Friends_of_Eugene
>>
>>
>> ----- Begin forwarded message -----
>> From: Paul Conte <pconte at picante-soft.com>
>> Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 22:36:37 -0700
>> To: NLC <nlc at eugeneneighbors.org>
>> Subject: [NLC] Important City meetings affecting our neighborhoods
>>
>> Tomorrow (Tuesday, May 4) the City will hold two-hour kickoff
>> meetings for the "Envision Eugene" process. It's very important
>> for neighborhood leaders and members to attend a kickoff meeting
>> and express strong support for protecting and enhancing the
>> stability and livability of all Eugene neighborhoods.
>>
>> Location: Eugene Hilton, 66 E. 6th Ave.
>> Time: There are two sessions (you can attend one or both): 4-6
>> p.m. and 7-9 p.m.
>> More City info is available at: www.EnvisionEugene.org<http://
>> www.envisioneugene.org/>
>>
>> In a nutshell, the Envision Eugene process will lead to City
>> Council taking one or both of the following actions to accommodate
>> future anticipated residential, commercial and industrial growth:
>> * Adopting new development policies and zoning code
>> that increase residential density inside the current Urban Growth
>> Boundary (UGB), and/or
>> * Adding additional land to the area encompassed by
>> Eugene's UGB.
>> The public process is happening on an extremely compressed time
>> frame (several months) and with very limited City resources. It's
>> critical that neighborhood advocates actively participate in the
>> process to be sure our neighborhoods are well-served by the outcome.
>>
>> While this City process aspires to lofty goals, my experience as a
>> member of the ECLA Community Advisory Committee leads me to
>> believe that the time and resources allotted to Envision Eugene
>> are frankly inadequate for the City to thoroughly inform residents
>> and carefully craft recommendations for City Council on the broad
>> range of issues involved.
>>
>> Consequently, unless all of us who are committed to the long term
>> well-being and vitality of our neighborhoods speak up forcefully,
>> there's a significant risk that the outcome could produce more of
>> the disastrous zoning code changes that allowed the extensive
>> incompatible and destabilizing infill that has occurred in the
>> many neighborhoods over the past twenty years.
>>
>> Many of the issues are complex, and "solutions" are sometimes
>> reduced to meaningless slogans, such as "grow up, not out."
>> Despite these obstacles, I hope you will, in your own individual
>> way, deliver this simple message to City staff and officials:
>>
>> A livable, sustainable city is built on great neighborhoods; and
>> therefore, a core growth management policy must be that City
>> Council takes no action to increase density that will harm or
>> degrade established neighborhoods.
>>
>> In my experience, most neighborhoods are willing and capable of
>> welcoming many new residents to the JWN by encouraging compatible
>> development in appropriate locations.
>>
>> However, we must not stand idly by and watch a repeat of recent
>> history where neighborhoods have been sacrificed in thoughtless
>> pursuit of numerical density goals.
>>
>> I'll see you at tomorrow's meetings!
>>
>> Paul Conte, Chair
>> Jefferson Westside Neighbors
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nlc mailing list
>> nlc at eugeneneighbors.org
>> http://www.designcommunity.com/mailman/listinfo/nlc
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/foe_members/
>> attachments/20100505/6b77e2f0/attachment.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foe_members mailing list
>> foe_members at friendsofeugene.org
>> http://www.designcommunity.com/mailman/listinfo/foe_members
>>
>>
>> End of foe_members Digest, Vol 5, Issue 2
>> *****************************************
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foe_discuss mailing list
> foe_discuss at friendsofeugene.org
> http://www.designcommunity.com/mailman/listinfo/foe_discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/foe_discuss/attachments/20100506/f4a6c877/attachment-0001.html
More information about the foe_discuss
mailing list