LUBA RET. EX 076/077 RE-E (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

This report was predominantly prepared by Bryn Thorns (135 Oakeligh Lane) with assistance from the lead authors presented above. The supporting authors, along with the lead authors have prepared letters of opposition, email correspondence citing code and applicability, collected photos and neighborhood data, posted signs in the community, prepared articles for local media, contacted community and organization leaders, attended neighborhood meetings and mediation sessions with OMC, planned, strategized, offered emotional and social support. The neighborhood group is reasonable, empathetic, strong, and have become very coordinated. They have also shown solid attempts to work with OMC and have concerns about the financial well-being of the people involved. It should also be pointed out that much of the argument and story presented by OMC is based on the idea that society needs community within an assumed bleak wasteland of suburban sprawl and concrete. A common talking point presented by OMC is the notion that in our society we can't go next door to our neighbor for cup of sugar. This is a line pulled directly from Chuck Durrett's cohousing book and it continues to be presented to the public as an attempt to persuade the public that the neighborhood needs cohousing. OMC has somehow forgotten that the neighborhood already has community and is stronger and tighter now, more than they ever have been. The OMC proposal has actually caused a significant rift between the landowners and many of the neighbors The neighbors do not necessarily need nor want more community in the form of a large and dense condominium complex forced into the area. We already borrow cups of sugar, watch each other's kids, take care of each other's dogs, and have dinners with each other. The cohousing lifestyle has a strong hold on the applicant and the land owner. Something that is often forgotten by the applicant is that the lifestyle of cohousing does not run with the land and that the property could be transferred to another owner uninterested in cohousing or the cohousing lifestyle could simply go away. This would leave a disruptive condominium complex in the quiet neighborhood. The neighborhood strongly urges the Hearings Official to look beyond the lifestyle arguments presented by OMC and focus on the applicable code and rules, thus basing the decision on land use, both current and future. This report is broken down into individual sections, which presents the concerns of the neighborhood as they apply to appropriate code, metropolitan plans, and State rules. The neighborhood strongly believes many of these rules and plans have been grossly abused by the applicant. In addition, the neighborhood also has concerns that City planning staff and management all too often allow "infill" to rise above the equally important aspects of The Metro Plan, "retain neighborhood character" and "create open space". Lead Author Credentials - Bryn Thoms, RG - Mr. Thoms is a Registered Geologist with the State of Oregon (#1805) and has worked in the Environmental Cleanup Industry for 22 years. He has a BS in Geology from Oregon State University, worked for an environmental consulting firm for 7 years and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for 15 years. At DEQ, Mr. Thorns oversees the cleanup of soil and groundwater contamination, interprets Oregon Administrative Rules with regards to completion of cleanups, the adequacy of consultant's work, prepares liability documentation in support of Oregon Department of Justice cleanup orders, and works with large corporations building agreements to conduct high priority cleanup. He is also proficient at preparing staff reports that support DEQ's decisions regarding cleanup of hazardous substances and the protection of human health and the environment. John Fenn, PhD. - Mr. Fenn holds a doctoral degree in Folklore and Ethnomusicology from Indiana University, and is an Assistant Professor in the Arts and Administration Program at the University of Page 4 of 20