My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENT - BILL ASPEGREN (3-2-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENT - BILL ASPEGREN (3-2-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:07 PM
Creation date
3/6/2017 11:03:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
PDD_Planning_Development
File Type
CA
File Year
17
File Sequence Number
1
Application Name
UGB ADOPTION PACKAGE
Document Type
Public Comments
Document_Date
3/2/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• Because of the erroneous data and assumptions, the land model produced incorrect results, <br />leading staff to: <br />o Claim there was a 1,600+ deficit of multi-family dwelling units (there is no deficit), <br />o Recommend increasing the minimum density for some R2 lots designated in the Metro <br />Plan as Medium Density Residential, this also affected some R1 zoned properties, <br />o Re-designate properties on a major transit corridor from medium and high density to <br />low density residential, to provide for more single family homes, <br />Lloyd informed the planning staff and City Council, over a year ago, of these problems, yet there has <br />been no attempt to verify or correct them. Instead staff chose to ignore five years of actual <br />development, stating: <br />"Some folks have suggested that we could update at least some of our key data or assumptions that <br />seem particularly out of date. While this may be tempting, all of the data is interconnected and policy <br />decisions are based on the relationships between data points; updating one assumption without <br />updating them all would impact the validity of other assumptions." <br />From the 2/24/2017 Envision Eugene Newsletter, as are later quotes. <br />In other words, the city is going to make policy decisions based on incorrect data and assumptions. This <br />seems like a bad approach and should be corrected, even if all assumptions are updated. <br />To compensate for the problems in the proposed plan, staff will develop a "growth monitoring <br />program", which will be used for "highlighting areas for policy adjustment". <br />Making policies that need adjustment when there is evidence that they are based on suspect <br />information is a bad approach. <br />With these problems, the current growth plan is likely to be appealed, causing further delays. <br />Where are we now? <br />The start date for the plan is 2012. As of February, 2017 77% of Eugene's 20 year need for multi-family <br />dwelling units (all types) has been built. At the current rate, all projected 6,797 multi-family dwelling <br />units will be complete in the next two or three years, not 20 years. <br />Why are the projections so far off from reality? Is it just the incorrect data and assumptions? Are more <br />people moving to Eugene than anticipated? Are economic conditions creating more renters? Is the <br />housing mix incorrect? <br />These and many other questions need to be answered before the proposed plan is approved. In its <br />current form this growth plan is not about moving the UGB, but about laying the groundwork for <br />changes to policies, zoning, Metro Plan and Eugene Code that may not be necessary. The potential harm <br />and cost to the community could be significant. The community does not need another mistake like SW- <br />SAZ. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.