[NLC] Info for January 20 CRG meeting; draft strategies

Wed Jan 19 17:43:14 PST 2011

FYI.

Quick observations:
*** VERY IMPORTANT *** There appears to be good news for 
neighborhoods in the "Neighborhood Livability Strategies" section of 
the "Draft Strategies" document. The "pillar" is verbatim as 
recommended by the group of over fifty neighborhood leaders (and 
already endorsed by six neighborhood association boards). The 
strategies include references to ICS and OS, as neighborhood leaders 
also proposed.
The first of the pivotal implementation strategies was identified by 
the neighborhood leaders' letter as: "Fully achieve the goals that 
were unanimously adopted by the Infill Compatibility Standards Task 
Team." This should not be limited to just completing work on the 
limited set of specific proposals that the ICS Task Team had time to 
produce. There are many issues the ICS Task Team didn't get to by the 
point at which Planning staff were reallocated from ICS to Envision 
Eugene. The staff document describes the strategy as "Complete Infill 
Compatibility Standards to prevent negative impacts ...." This is not 
inconsistent with the neighborhood leaders' letter, but is ambiguous 
and needs to be clarified so that it's not interpreted to narrowly 
down the road.

*** HEADS UP *** Strategy 2 under the "Multi-Family Housing 
Strategies" states: "Create a compatible transition area between 
higher density or commercial uses and single-family neighborhoods 
that provides opportunities for a variety of housing types." In the 
past, staff has presented "transition areas" as areas on low-density 
residential lots on the edge of a residential neighborhood or 
adjacent to a non-residential area, such as a park. The objective has 
been to allow greater than historical R-1 densities in these 
transition areas, e.g., with row-houses, smaller lots, narrower 
frontages, etc. The description above is ambiguous, but sounds like 
it has the same intent. This could be a huge "hole" in neighborhood 
protection, and should properly be a strategy that is subordinate to 
ICS and OS principles and policies.

Just as importantly, what's needed are transition areas on commercial 
or higher-density residential lots adjacent to low-density 
residential areas so that there's a transition with a gradient of 
intensity that decreases toward the lcommercial or HDR ots that have 
immediate impacts on the established low-density residential edges of 
a neighborhood. If you'd like examples, I can point to some good ones 
in the JWN, which has C-x, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 and S-JW zones that 
"rub" against each other in many places.

*** TRUE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT *** This first draft of a list of 
"pillars" and strategies is a good step from the well-done "Envision 
Eugene Guiding Principles" because it finally provides something 
concrete for the public to consider and comment on. Now, let's 
provide a reasonable amount of time for neighborhood associations and 
the general public to take these proposals up, get clarifications, 
and make informed comments and recommendations. It's fine for thirty 
or so CRG members to spend a day or two considering these proposals, 
but this isn't by any means adequate to get broad, well-informed 
community support. Just within the JWN, I would expect to get twice 
that number of residents and business owners at a meeting to consider 
these proposals. Total up all the folks who would come to their NA 
meeting on these kinds of proposals, and the number and breadth of 
participation will dwarf the CRG.

Then, what should the staff and Council do? Put off the February 28 
decision date -- there's no longer any critical need to decide on 
something as intermediate as these non-quantified strategies by the 
"magic" date of February 28. Plan enough time so deep support can be 
built on what is a pretty good step along the way. Rush this through 
and it will seem like the deal was "cooked" with no serious interest 
in broad public engagement on the concrete decisions that Council will make.

*** RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD *** By now this may be pretty obvious, but 
the real impact of these strategies depends on what Council 
ultimately adopts for the assumptions about what housing types and 
densities these strategies are assumed to produce and in which 
specific locations the new housing (and commercial development) will 
go. There's a lot of work and plenty of valid debate that needs to 
occur before then, which also needs to be "daylighted" and given enough time.
A brief pause to pat neighborhood leaders on the back!

Prior to fifty-plus neighborhood leaders joining together as 
signatories on the letter to the CRG, "neighborhood livability" 
wasn't on the CRG radar. Now it's a "pillar" with a reasonable first 
cut at implementation strategies.

Once again, we can see the power of the "three C's" -- "Collective, 
Constructive and Coherent" action.

Thanks to everyone who helped. Let's stay on it, and stick together, 
to make sure the final EE result remains true to the intent.

-- Paul

P.S. For those interested in how words can shape thinking ... I don't 
believe the term "pillar" was in the EE lexicon until neighborhood 
leaders introduced it in the letter. Now it's a foundational EE image 
-- and a good one.

>From: GARDNER Lisa A <Lisa.A.Gardner at ci.eugene.or.us>
>To: *Eugene CRG Master List <CRGMasterList at ci.eugene.or.us>
>Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 16:38:51 -0800
>Subject: CRG meeting info
>
>Hello CRG,
>
>I'm looking forward to seeing you all tomorrow at the Eugene Hilton, 
>12th floor Vista Room, at 9am.  Free parking is available in the 
>Hilton garage.  We will have another full day as we hear from two of 
>our small groups, housing and economic development.  We will have 
>ample time for presentations and small group discussions around 
>those two topics.  We will also build on some of the conversations 
>we had last week around neighborhood livability, multi-family 
>housing, and commercial lands.  We will discuss draft strategies for 
>each of these topics which I have attached a copy of below for your review.
>
>  The following items are attached:
>
>*       As requested, information from the Infill Compatibility 
>Standards process:
>o       The list of Task Team Recommendations and their status 
>(shared at the December 13th CRG meeting in poster size)
>o       RIFLIT (R-1/Flag Lot) Committee Recommendations
>*       Recorded notes from the January 13, CRG meeting
>*       Draft Strategies regarding neighborhood livability, 
>multi-family housing, and commercial lands
>
>See you all tomorrow,
>Lisa
>
>Lisa Gardner | Planning Director
>City of Eugene | Planning & Development
>99 West 10th Avenue | Eugene Oregon 97401
>Phone 541.682.5208 | Fax 541.682.5572
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110119/ca2c041c/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICS_Recommendations_12_2010_2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 67429 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110119/ca2c041c/attachment-0004.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 04-26-2010_PC_Agenda_RIFLIT.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 108060 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110119/ca2c041c/attachment-0005.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CRG 1-13-11 Integrated Notes.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 290824 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110119/ca2c041c/attachment-0006.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft_strategies_CRG_1-20-11.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 78812 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110119/ca2c041c/attachment-0007.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap) 190.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2632 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110119/ca2c041c/attachment-0001.jpg 