Comments on UGB Proposal • March 7, 2017 <br />To: Planning Commission and Planning staff <br />From: Joshua Skov • joshuaskov.eugenela~amail.com <br />I am writing in support of the current UGB proposal coming before the Planning Commission. I <br />will limit my comments here to questions of data and monitoring. <br />My comments are intended to preempt one key criticism I am hearing about this proposal: that <br />the data should be updated to be as recent as possible. This criticism is well-intentioned and on <br />its face legitimate, but in fact it ignores the recent past and our intentions for the future. Let me <br />explain. <br />The Envision Eugene Technical Resource Group (TRG) spent years and many hundreds of <br />volunteer hours working with staff and vetting methods, thinking, and tool-building to bring us <br />to the place we are now. As a result, some of the oldest data in use in the proposal may seem <br />"stale" to outside observers who wonder how we could be using out-of-date information in our <br />planning. But that view misses the fact we have extended our timeline precisely because we <br />have conducted such extensive analysis and due diligence. <br />More important, we should feel urgency to get to the next stage of the process in order to <br />implement our monitoring strategy, the impetus of which is Envision Eugene Pillar 7 ("Provide <br />for adaptable, flexible and collaborative implementation"). The TRG invested considerable time <br />in laying out an institutional framework for such on-going monitoring and implementation, but we <br />cannot begin that work until we approve this package and begin to implement that framework. <br />In other words, we must consider the opportunity cost of extending the process at this time by <br />delaying it with data updating. The longer we let the desire for the perfect be the enemy of the <br />good enough for now, the longer we postpone the creation of this important collaborative, <br />multi-stakeholder monitoring process, which really should be the place where we have these <br />deliberations on an on-going basis. With so much foundational work done, let us move quickly <br />to building the sustained collaborative effort that Pillar 7 envisions. In that process, we will <br />regularly revisit our land use model with new data and new ideas, and thereby realize the <br />"adaptable, flexible and collaborative implementation" that we are poised to carry out. <br />And as a final aside, it is important to note that, in using the data years in this proposal, the City <br />is entirely in compliance within state law. <br />In conclusion, I will point out that I too wish for the newest data, as I see evidence that local land <br />use and development have started to evolve in ways that suggest we will have to adjust our <br />assumptions and adapt our land use planning. But the best path toward that work is to approve <br />our current UGB proposal and move as swiftly as possible to the next phase. <br />