[NLC] Fwd: Draft Economic Development Report 20110119-04 - Envision Eugene

[Paul Conte]

FYI

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).

Quick observations:
* 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.

-- Paul

----------

>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
>  Eugene
>
>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,
>
>Kevin Matthews
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110120/48bf3f50/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft-Economic Development Report 20110119-041.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 167937 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110120/48bf3f50/attachment-0001.pdf