M A R K <br />1958 Fircrest Dr. <br />Oct. 15, 2013 <br />Becky Taylor, Associate Planner <br />Eugene Planning & Development <br />99 W. 10`b Ave. <br />Eugene, OR 97401 <br />C 0 N L E <br />Eugene Oregon 97403 <br />RE: Oakleigh Meadow Co-housing Development (hereafter Oakleigh or OMC) <br />SUGGESTED ACTION <br />Document 1 of 6 <br />Dear Ms. Taylor: <br />Thank you for taking on the work of this challenging and controversial project. I know you've been <br />working hard. <br />I know there is a standard form and process for making planning decisions. I would like for you to <br />consider taking the following SUGGESTED ACTION. If it deviates from standard process, please see <br />what you can do to make this possible. I think it will be the most cooperative process and lead to a <br />favorable outcome. Here it is. <br />You know that you will probably make a decision and recommendation that likely will not be endorsed <br />by the neighbors, who will surely appeal the decision. An appeal process will create a hostile them-us <br />polarity and probably will extend the time and expense to a final decision, which is not financially a wise <br />use of city money. <br />Postpone your decision. Defer it. Insert another series of public meetings between the Oct. 16 deadline <br />and your decision/recommendation. At these meetings, allow the following people: <br />First, a spokesperson for Oakleigh (all interested Oakleigh proponents welcome) <br />Second, a spokesperson for neighbors (all interested opponents and proponents - neighbors and the public <br />- welcome) <br />Third, a city planning employee who is familiar with the hundreds of laws and overlays the planning <br />department uses to make decisions (and other recommended and interested staff welcome) <br />Fourth, an architect, landscape architect, and civil engineer not having any stake in this matter, to guide <br />all in a charette process. <br />The purpose of these interstitial meetings is to form a collaborative process, built upon mutual respect, <br />that weaves a feasible, reasonable design proposal that is likely to end in a shared approval by all <br />interested parties that we can all be proud of, and even brag about as a standard of development that is <br />worthy of being replicated. <br />Why am I suggesting this alternative approach to your process? I have met with the architect's project <br />manager and I have met with several neighbors. I believe the neighbors are intelligent, negotiable, and <br />willing to engage a reasonable proposal. I believe the neighbors are supportive of the concept of co- <br />housing, scaled to fit their specific neighborhood and environment. I believe they strongly feel the <br />622 <br />