HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Testimony (in Support)March 5, 2018
Virginia Gustafson-Lucker, Eugene Hearing Official
c/o Nick Gioello, Associate Planner
Planning Division
City of Eugene
99 West 10th Avenue
Eugene, Oregon 97401
RE: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1)
Dear. Ms. Gustafson-Lucker:
You will likely hear from many people that the Capital Hill PUD is too dense, produces too much
traffic, and removes too many trees. At between 2.4-2.8 units an acre, the development is well below the
5-unit per acre limit imposed by the South Hills Plan. The applicants initiated two traffic studies in
response to neighborhoods concerns and provide greater safety and circulation through improving Capital
Drive and building a new road. The applicants are also preserving a third of the site's vegetation and
trees, particularly in the area near the Ribbon Trail. Although opponents will argue otherwise, this
development is sensitively designed and is consistent with adopted goals and policies, particularly the
Envision Eugene pillars.
Consequently, the South Hills Plan density recommendations include three purpose statements, one of
which describes the recommendations are intended to "insure adequate provision for development to
accommodate anticipated growth." When the South Hills Plan was adopted in 1974, roughly 93,000
people lived in Eugene. Since then, the population has increased to 167,780 residents - a reality the
South Hills Plan anticipated. It's an increase we can't ignore, although there are those in our community
who have tried their best to do so. It is certainly the more personally convenient choice. But it is also the
choice that harms our community the most.
Simply put, we have a housing crisis. Since 2010, we have only built roughly 1,700 new single family
homes. The lack of missing middle and secondary dwelling units is even worse. To put this crisis into
perspective, almost 11,500 new residents have moved to Eugene since 2010. With such a limited supply
of existing housing and a lack of new housing being built, it is no surprise our overall vacancy rate often
falls between five and six percent. As a community, we are obligated to provide community solutions to
community problems. This means supporting housing in our neighborhoods, particularly in light of our
housing crisis.
Opponents of this project will dismiss this claim by stating that these homes will be priced beyond what
most Eugene residents can afford. It is common for those against housing developments to justify
excluding others from their neighborhood by stating the project is too expensive, would work better
elsewhere, or isn't the right fit. Sometimes these claims bear merit - a high-density apartment complex
would not be an appropriately-scaled development for this site. But the applicants do not propose that
type of development. Instead, they propose a development that will look similar and be priced the same
as other homes in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, the homes provided by the Capital Hill PUD will provide more opportunities for
homeownership and free up other housing stock for purchase, including less expensive homes. This is
consistent with the Envision Eugene pillar to "provide housing affordable to all income levels." Ignoring
our housing crisis impacts both Eugene and the communities around us. When we are unable to support
housing opportunities within our UGB, those priced out of our community must move to other areas. This
can affect family stability, force people to work far away from where they work and have a devastating
effect on their quality- of life. This also has a detrimental effect on neighborhood livability, as it leads to
neighborhoods that are less diverse and vibrant.
In summary, the Capital Hill PUD robustly meets development code requirements and the values
our community adopted. I ask you to please approve this application. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Ed McMahon
Executive Vice President
Home Builders Association of Lane County