Action <br />My preferred action would be to reject the proposed growth plan and send it back to create <br />more accurate data and assumptions. However, much time and effort has gone into the current <br />package and everyone wants to see this proposal move to the next level. <br />As an alternative, approve the plan with some conditions. <br />• Based on the data that shows multi-family development is far ahead of projections, do <br />not alter R2 minimum densities. <br />• Form a commission tasked with creating reliable data and a new detailed assessment of <br />land within the UGB: <br />o Using lot specific metro plan maps <br />o Resolving metro plan and zoning conflicts <br />o Creating site verified buildable land inventory maps <br />• Enter the updated data and new assumptions into the land model to create a new UGB <br />plan, and try various scenarios. <br />• As part of the commission include: <br />o A City Councilor <br />o A planning commissioner <br />o Planners <br />o Community members with land use interest and knowledge <br />o An outside consultant familiar with creating a buildable land inventory <br />• Set a hard target for completion of 18 months <br />• Defer work on code changes for objective standards and urban reserves <br />I want to see Eugene's growth plan move to the next level as much as anyone. At the same <br />time, I want the product to be based on the best available data and assumptions. Please <br />consider my comments when evaluating the proposed plan. <br />Thanks, <br />Bill Aspegren <br />Not having a multi-family deficit brings up the question, is MUPTE needed to build apartments downtown? City <br />policies may have already led to multi-family units being over built during the planning period and offering 10-year <br />property tax exemptions only makes the situation worse. Obviously, this does not affect ordinance #2, but points <br />out the danger of making decisions without proper information. <br />4 <br />