My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUBLIC COMMENT – BILL ASPEGREN (6-16-17)
>
OnTrack
>
CA
>
2017
>
CA 17-1
>
PUBLIC COMMENT – BILL ASPEGREN (6-16-17)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2017 1:48:07 PM
Creation date
6/21/2017 8:40:35 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
6/16/2017
External View
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
June 16, 2017 <br />To: Eugene City Council and Lane County Board of Commissioners <br />From: Bill Aspegren <br />Subject: Testimony for the June 27, 2017 Joint Public Hearing of the Eugene City Council and <br />the Lane County board of Commissioners - Specifically Ordinance #2 (Land for Housing) Multi- <br />Family Problems <br />Over two years ago both the Eugene City Council and Eugene's Planning Division were told of <br />conflicts between the multi-family growth plan and what was happening in the community. No <br />action was taken to correct the problem. Excuses were made and the problem was ignored. <br />Work continued, without a change in direction, until today you have before you a multi-family <br />growth plan that bears no resemblance to reality. Even worse, the planning staff is <br />recommending changes to minimum density in R-2 residential zones based on inaccurate <br />information. This is to help offset an alleged deficit of 1,600 multi-family units. There is no deficit <br />(see endnote'), and no need for a code amendment. <br />Problems <br />Simply stated the growth plan's multi-family estimates have been grossly underestimated'. <br />Currently, between 75 and 80% of the projected 20-year need has been built, is being built or is <br />planned and the 20-year growth plan is only five years old. <br />How did this occur? Both data and assumptions used by the land model are incorrectz. This has <br />the potential to affect more than just multi-family projections. <br />Questions <br />Since we are already five years into the proposed plan, you would think there would be a <br />reasonable correlation between multi-family projections and actual experience. There isn't, <br />which raises many questions. <br />• Is it just incorrect data and assumptions? <br />• Are economic conditions creating more renters? <br />• Is the housing mix incorrect? <br />• Have multi-family units been overbuilt? <br />• How are lands for employment affected? <br />The problems with multi-family projections is a symptom of greater problems with the overall <br />growth plan. It raises the question of whether or not any of the projections can be trusted if the <br />data and assumptions are wrong. <br />1 Based on Lloyd Helikson's detailed analysis and testimony of multi-family housing development since July 2012 to <br />date. Submitted for review by the joint planning commissions and updated for the Eugene City Council and Lane <br />County Commissioners June 27, 2017 meeting. <br />2 See my testimony dated March 2, 2017 submitted for the joint planning commission's public hearing, especially <br />section titled Plan Problems. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.