My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENT - BRENT MCLEAN (3-11-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENT - BRENT MCLEAN (3-11-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:08 PM
Creation date
3/13/2017 9:18:45 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
3/11/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
March 11, 2017 <br />RE: For the record regarding the proposed UGB expansion by the Envision Eugene process <br />Dear Eugene City Council and Lane County Commissioners: <br />I had the honor of working with a community advisory group ECLA which was the precursor to the <br />Envision Eugene Process. Our group followed "Safe Harbor" in every case study from 2008 to 2010. <br />Most of the community members like myself are very much in tune with the lack of buildable lands <br />inventory which Eugene needs so desperately. Once our work was completed the City Council and <br />Mayor voted unanimously to approve our findings and make it part of the record for this process. In our <br />study if I remember correctly the need was to expand the UGB 1,550 acres to meet the State or Oregon <br />law requirements for residential, commercial and industrial land's needs. <br />Shortly after ECLA completed its work the Envision Eugene process engaged with the uninformed public <br />for them to better understand what our needs are to meet State law. After about 6 years as you are <br />well aware of Envision Eugene submitted their final proposal of our buildable lands needs moving <br />forward into the next 20 years. Being cognizant of opposition to both sides of the fence Terri Harding <br />and her staff could not have done a better job. It took years of patience to come up with their final <br />recommendation of around 850 acres. Simply put mostly "Large Tract Industrial" and "Parks and <br />Schools" land needs is the recommendation to expand the UGB. <br />The question that you as City Councilors and Commissioners have to ask yourself is why so much <br />difference in both studies. It will be a policy decision by the City Council to adopt the findings of the <br />Envision Eugene process and to allow an "Urban Reserve Boundary" to be put in place. If the City of <br />Eugene does not take additional lands into a URB the City of Junction City and Veneta will keep going <br />towards Eugene without the important development standards that are sensitive to all of what we are <br />about here in Eugene. <br />My suggestion is that your policy decision gives serious consideration to an "Urban Reserve Boundary" <br />to insure we have room to grow for the next 50 years and stop the smaller cities from inhaling all of the <br />vacant land between Eugene and their communities. Without having affordable building lots for <br />residential needs Eugene keeps sending folks who want a larger affordable building lot to build in the <br />outlining communities. Most of the folks who live in the outlining areas work in Eugene but pay no real <br />property taxes and put a strain on all of our roads and infrastructure. <br />www.eugeneindustrial.com • 541-913-1031 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.