HomeMy WebLinkAboutHEARING EXHIBIT #1 PUBLIC COMMENT - BILL ASPEGREN (3-7-17)J iln u,!oc Hearing
C,"v of EL' Pi a''I i- l'ig CS rPvc: aor,M Fit
M~.h
ar }
44 2017 -0>
March 7, 2017 -Bill Aspegren, Eugene File M~1i ~t Exhibit
My comments are not aimed at Ordinance 1 or the proposed UGB expansion. Rather, my
concerns are that Ordinance 2 is based on incorrect data and assumptions and, if approved, will
result in changes to policies, zoning and code that will have a negative impact on
neighborhoods.
1 have submitted written testimony, which relates to multi-family housing projections. My
conclusions are primarily based on research and analysis done by Lloyd Helikson. He also
submitted testimony.
Ordinance 2's proposed plan is based on a flawed process that created an incorrect Buildable
Land Inventory.
This incorrect data along with wrong assumptions were used as input to the land model, which
produced questionable results.
For example, the model indicated there is a land deficit of 1,600+ multi-family dwelling units.
Lloyd's research shows this is not true. However, staff has recommended un-needed policy
changes in Ordinance 2 to deal with this 1,600 deficit.
The research shows, since the plan start date, July 1, 2012, 77% of the 6,800 multi-family
dwelling units Eugene needs over the next 20 years have already been built. or are under
construction. The land model is not even close to this reality.
The plan, presented in Ordinance 2, has many problems, it is not timely, and it would be a
mistake to use it as a basis. for policy decisions, zone and code changes that may harm the
community.
These problems, and others, were brought to staff's attention over a year ago, and no action
was taken to verify and fix them.
Instead, to compensate for the problems, staff said, in Sunday's R-G, that they are anxious to
get the adoption of the boundary done so they can quote, "launch a new growth monitoring
program, for example to track development in Eugene to see whether the planners'
assumptions were correct and provide data so city leaders can make adjustments, including
expanding the boundary, if needed.", and they say, "the first report is due three years after the
state approves a new boundary".
We already know the data and assumptions used to create the current projection are wrong.
There is no reason to make policy changes now, based on incorrect information, and then
wait three years to fix the mess.
Please rejecterdinance 2 and ask that the data and assumptions are corrected to better reflect
reality. Do not accept excuses why these elements cannot be changed. Above all do not allow
any changes to policies, code or zoning based on this proposed plan.