[NLC] Fwd: Draft Economic Development Report 20110119-04 - Envision Eugene
pconte at picante-soft.com
Thu Jan 20 08:40:54 PST 2011
A little background:
The City must show that it has a twenty year supply of land for
commercial and industrial enterprises and the jobs they provide. The
key determinants are projected job growth, the various categories of
enterprises (e.g., industrial and commercial), and the job "density"
(*employees-per-acre" or EPA).
A major issue for the industrial category is the need for large
parcels (variously considered from 25 to 100 acres).
* Job growth rate: A major factor in determining land need is the
rate of job growth in each of the respective categories. The draft
presents 0.9% and 1.4% as end-points in a range. The lower figure
reflects slower economic growth as a continuing effect of the "Great
Recession." Eugene currently has a high unemployment rate, and some
people have suggested that a key strategy of EE should be to promote
a higher jobs growth rate to reduce the unemployment rate.
* Page 3. This draft presents two alternatives for calculating the
number of new jobs that don't require any land. The difference in
projected land need between these two methods is over 100 acres,
warranting very careful examination of the evidence supporting the
respective assumptions. (The draft does not provide this.)
* Page 3. The draft shows a land need in excess of projected current
capacity for the "commercial" category in a range of 28 to 230 acres.
FWIW, the final ECLA report projected a need for 388 additional acres.
* Page 4. The draft states: "The general consensus of the Economic
Development Group is that sufficient commercial land can be found
within the UBG," but does not explain how and where the projected
unmet need would be met. The draft also doesn't appear to connect the
need for commercial land to service any new residential areas that
may be added within the new UGB.
* Page 5. The draft states: "We discussed the fact that while
metropolitan location of residences is the primary driver of VMT, the
metropolitan location of employment sites is less sensitive."
Although there's debate on this point, I believe the preponderance of
data indicates that the average distance between residence and
employment is by a large degree the dominant factor in determining average VMT.
* The draft mentions the LCC basin and Goshen as potential industrial
areas. In the discussions I've heard, the "LCC basin" does not
include the farmland between I-5, Hwy 58 and the Willamette River
(i.e., west and south of Mt. Pisgah. However, Carlos Barrera has
raised a very important question: What happens in the future if we
run a big sewer main out to service LCC (and/or Goshen)? Would this
lead to selecting the adjacent flat land for the next area of
residential development. I defer to Carlos on this issue. My point in
mentioning it is that many of the decisions in EE may have
consequences that aren't quickly seen. This is why we need to stop
this last minute, mad rush to have Council make critical decisions
just 5-1/2 weeks from today.
* Page 3. The draft indicates the subgroup as a whole believes
"actual jobs growth, along with other key dimensions of employment
land use and need, should be monitored, reported, and discussed
regularly, and at least every five years." This is consistent with
the "5/20" approach (in short: plan for twenty years and revise every
five years), but stops short of including the essential action of
"..., and revise the plan, if warranted." Discussion alone is not
enough if there hasn't been a commitment ahead of time to "follow the
evidence" by revising the actual policies, programs and land supply, as needed.
>Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 07:18:15 -0800
>From: Kevin Matthews <matthews at artifice.com>
>To: Eugene CRG Master List <CRGMasterList at ci.eugene.or.us>
>Subject: [CRG] Draft Economic Development Report 20110119-04 - Envision
>Dear Envision Eugene CRG,
>Here's a detailed working draft report on the progress to date in
>the Economic Development committee, incorporating our wide-ranging
>and productive discussions through the four session on Tuesday afternoon.
>Since we didn't have formal recording of our wide ranging
>discussions, there is certainly some guesswork involved here, and
>some things of significance were surely missed. This report has
>been complied from Bill's original discussion-basis report, plus
>Pat's extensive transcribed notes, with my recollections of what we
>covered, and additional edits from Bill and Pat. You can lay any
>errors on my shoulders, and this should be presented with
>opportunities for any clarifications and additions the people
>involved would like.
>A basis for further exploration and refinement, I hope.
>with best wishes,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft-Economic Development Report 20110119-041.pdf
Size: 167937 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110120/48bf3f50/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the nlc