Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

and then come back and discuss what’s been learned. Mr. Duncan asked if the housing goal should be more large, single-family homes, or more European with higher apartment buildings and more density. Ms. Bettman asserted that looking at population expansion was not necessary. She said population allocations were a mistake and housing units should be the focus. This assertion was supported by a study done by the Housing Policy Board that was a strategy for increasing density. She proposed postponing action on Population Allocations. Mr. Kelly disagreed. Although he agreed it was right to step back from the neighborhood-by- neighborhood target at this time, it was not feasible to intelligently ask a neighborhood how it could absorb more people if they did not know what resources were available. He stated that the Region 2050 study that was out for public review included projection population data from Portland State University. If the estimates were not accurate, the worst result would be that the City was ahead of the game. Mr. Belcher proposed getting a base to start with. This would be an iterative process in which estimates could be adjusted over time. He opined the first iteration could be available in 12 to 18 months. Mr. Kelly maintained the issue was not counting either housing units or population, but counting both, and evaluating changing demographics as they would impact the mix of housing types. Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Planning Commission’s strategy for Opportunity Siting, infill standards, and population allocations, as outlined in the Agenda Item Summary, and as amended through the discussion. In response to Mr. Papé, Mr. Yeiter explained that what was missing from the GIS process was housing projections that were required by the State to complete a buildable lands inventory. It would be easy to find out through the GIS system what vacant land was available, or what developed sites were eligible for redevelopment. Mayor Piercy felt there was a difference between the population expected and the demographics desired for the community. She asserted that if the City continued down the current path, families would continue to move outside of Eugene. It was important to make decisions based on providing housing families could afford. Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the motion because direct protection for neighborhoods had been removed from the motion. Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the motion for the same reason as Ms. Bettman, and she was totally opposed to population allocations. The motion passed 5:2, Ms. Bettman and Taylor voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy expressed the City Council’s appreciation for the amount of effort and time the Planning Commission gave on behalf of the community. Mr. Duncan thanked the City Council for its direction. Mr. Duncan adjourned the meeting of the Planning Commission at 1 p.m. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting of the City Council at 1 p.m. MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 7 Work Session