The situation seems to be that staff and the EPC are getting a lot of incorrect and self-interested input from developers <br />and special interest groups that are framed as making Eugene SB1051 compliant but are, in fact, intended to allow for <br />more density in general, which is not the stated intent of 561051. This sort of mess is a direct result of a flawed process <br />that lacks transparency and useful public input (which would have likely caught these problems) beyond parties with <br />pre-existing agendas. Further, that a piecemeal approach that slices and dices different code provisions will inevitably <br />result in confusing and contradictory code. Instead of clarification and predictability we get the exact opposite. Mayor <br />Vinis recently said as much. <br />Therefore, since Eugene is, on its face, in compliance with the letter (SDUs allowed in R-1) and spirit (increasing housing <br />opportunities via the dwellings now allowed on church property) we should declare victory and move on to setting up <br />clear and objective standards. Once that is achieved, we should (as the coalition of Neighborhood Groups proposed) <br />then take on the systematic analysis of each neighborhood via the associated Neighborhood Association to identify the <br />conditions for development in each neighborhood, opportunities for smart infill, and potential locations for affordable <br />housing development. <br />I think you for your time and attention, <br />-TED <br />Ted M. Coopman, Chair. <br />Jefferson Westside Neighbors <br />Executive Board <br />Eugene, OR <br />www.iwneugene.org <br />