team is about to score. The concept is identical. Tacking recent regulations on to building <br />permits as a work-around and claiming they aren't land use decisions isn't in keeping with the <br />goalpost rule at all. It's an argument that would only fool a lawyer. <br />More importantly, it isn't keeping the spirit of the rule that created an incentive to <br />construct more controlled income and rent housing. The whole idea of that incentive <br />was to meet the City Council's very clear goal of addressing a housing crisis that has <br />only gotten worse since the bad old days of 2002. <br />There is another issue besides the entirely valid argument about the critical need for low-income <br />housing. The City of Eugene is currently about 600 units short of their required supply of <br />medium density residential units, as identified in Envision Eugene and our metro plan. This <br />project alone would provide about 30% of the target. <br />In summary, what we have here is a great piece of property which is part of our residential land <br />inventory. The owners of that property want to create new housing with a public purpose to <br />serve lower income households. There is a critical need for that housing and the location is <br />excellent. There are adopted goals and policies that stress the importance of this housing. <br />There is ample data to prove it is needed. But to have it built, there needs to be a level of <br />certainty about future requirements and there cannot be requirements that kill the project. So, if <br />you want to kill this project, you can. All you have to do is either move the goalposts or threaten <br />to move them later. Both are unfair and are contrary to state statutes. <br />I've never served on the Planning Commission but twice I was appointed to the Human Rights <br />Commission. In this matter both commissions should see this issue the same. Housing is a <br />fundamental human right. I encourage you to be on the human right side of this issue. <br />4 <br />