Ms. Becky Taylor <br />Oakleigh Meadow Cohousing Project <br />Figure 2 presents the Nevada City project which is zoned as R-2 (medium density) as well as most of the <br />conterminous parcels. The access to the project site is off of a main arterial which is very close to a state <br />highway. The satellite image shows quite a bit of undeveloped land around the project site. <br />Figure 3 presents the Doyle Street/Emeryville Cohousing project located on the east side of San <br />Francisco Bay. The satellite image presents significant asphalt/concrete and very dense housing as well <br />as a very large office/mixed use complex immediately west across Doyle street. Doyle Street is located <br />to the west of the project location and it provides access to the north off a main thoroughfare as well as <br />connection to collector streets in the neighborhood to the east. There are no low density residential <br />zones in Emeryville. The Project is located in a medium density residential zone. <br />Figure 4 presents the Wolf Creek Cohousing project in the southern portion of Grass Valley California. <br />The satellite image shows a significant amount of asphalt/concrete and large buildings associated with <br />the neighboring commercial zone (C-2). The project is located within R-3 and has a moderate buffer of <br />undeveloped land between the project site and the neighboring low density residential to the south. <br />Also, the project location has a decent access off of a short arterial that feeds a major highway. <br />In summary, the projects referenced in the letters of support for the OMC project are not comparable to <br />the Oakleigh Lane neighborhood/area. The main inequities are existing land use, zoning, neighborhood <br />character, and access. <br />Lifestyle vs Land Use <br />The letters of support for the OMC project are well focused on one theme, cohousing. Because of that, <br />there has been little opposition from anyone who lives far from the project location. OMC has done a <br />great job marketing the project as being sustainable, green, neighbor-friendly, and supported by the <br />surrounding neighborhood, when in fact, the majority of the surrounding neighborhood opposes the <br />project. because of its size, poor fit with neighborhood character, and concerns with traffic on a one-lane <br />dead-end road. The OMC application relies on the term "cohousing" and the associated perceived <br />sustainability that cohousing provides. The problem with this is that the application fails to adequately <br />' address actual issues of land use, such as traffic increase/safety, neighborhood character, open space in <br />the Greenway, green construction, construction duration, and potential decrease in property value, as <br />well as several other factors. <br />Based on a review of other Planned Unit Developments in Eugene, there is always opposition from the <br />neighbors. It should be no surprise to OMC that there would be opposition. Ironically, a supporting <br />factor for OMC that seems to be forgotten is that the neighborhood generally supported the project <br />when it was small. That's not the case anymore, due to the size. <br />I suspect that if the OMC proposal did not have cohousing as part of the theme, the same supporters of <br />OMC would be fighting it because it would simply be another condominium complex, which is proven <br />with every PUD. To add, there is nothing that institutionally binds OMC or future land owner to be a <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />