My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
HEARING EXHIBIT #1 PUBLIC COMMENT - BILL ASPEGREN (3-7-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
HEARING EXHIBIT #1 PUBLIC COMMENT - BILL ASPEGREN (3-7-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:04 PM
Creation date
3/10/2017 10:53:23 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
3/7/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
J iln u,!oc Hearing <br />C,"v of EL' Pi a''I i- l'ig CS rPvc: aor,M Fit <br />M~.h <br />ar } <br />44 2017 -0> <br />March 7, 2017 -Bill Aspegren, Eugene File M~1i ~t Exhibit <br />My comments are not aimed at Ordinance 1 or the proposed UGB expansion. Rather, my <br />concerns are that Ordinance 2 is based on incorrect data and assumptions and, if approved, will <br />result in changes to policies, zoning and code that will have a negative impact on <br />neighborhoods. <br />1 have submitted written testimony, which relates to multi-family housing projections. My <br />conclusions are primarily based on research and analysis done by Lloyd Helikson. He also <br />submitted testimony. <br />Ordinance 2's proposed plan is based on a flawed process that created an incorrect Buildable <br />Land Inventory. <br />This incorrect data along with wrong assumptions were used as input to the land model, which <br />produced questionable results. <br />For example, the model indicated there is a land deficit of 1,600+ multi-family dwelling units. <br />Lloyd's research shows this is not true. However, staff has recommended un-needed policy <br />changes in Ordinance 2 to deal with this 1,600 deficit. <br />The research shows, since the plan start date, July 1, 2012, 77% of the 6,800 multi-family <br />dwelling units Eugene needs over the next 20 years have already been built. or are under <br />construction. The land model is not even close to this reality. <br />The plan, presented in Ordinance 2, has many problems, it is not timely, and it would be a <br />mistake to use it as a basis. for policy decisions, zone and code changes that may harm the <br />community. <br />These problems, and others, were brought to staff's attention over a year ago, and no action <br />was taken to verify and fix them. <br />Instead, to compensate for the problems, staff said, in Sunday's R-G, that they are anxious to <br />get the adoption of the boundary done so they can quote, "launch a new growth monitoring <br />program, for example to track development in Eugene to see whether the planners' <br />assumptions were correct and provide data so city leaders can make adjustments, including <br />expanding the boundary, if needed.", and they say, "the first report is due three years after the <br />state approves a new boundary". <br />We already know the data and assumptions used to create the current projection are wrong. <br />There is no reason to make policy changes now, based on incorrect information, and then <br />wait three years to fix the mess. <br />Please rejecterdinance 2 and ask that the data and assumptions are corrected to better reflect <br />reality. Do not accept excuses why these elements cannot be changed. Above all do not allow <br />any changes to policies, code or zoning based on this proposed plan. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.