Laserfiche WebLink
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. <br /> <br />Population Allocations <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher said this was the area where the Planning Commission held the least cohesive position. Some <br />felt it was time to implement the City’s growth management policies while others felt this was a futile <br />exercise. The lack of cohesion resulted in two suggested strategies: 1) Determine where we are now; and <br />2) Start looking at what the impacts or damages or improvements that opportunity siting and infill gives, <br />and then come back and discuss what’s been learned. <br /> <br />Mr. Duncan asked if the housing goal should be more large single-family homes, or more a European style <br />with higher apartment buildings and more density. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman asserted that looking at population expansion was not necessary. She said population <br />allocations were a mistake and housing units should be the focus. This assertion was supported by a study <br />done by the Housing Policy Board that was a strategy for increasing density. She proposed postponing <br />action on population allocations. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly disagreed. Although he agreed it was right to step back from the neighborhood-by- <br />neighborhood target at this time, it was not feasible to intelligently ask a neighborhood how it could absorb <br />more people if the City did not know what resources were available. He stated that the Region 2050 study <br />that was out for public review included projection population data from Portland State University. If the <br />estimates were not accurate, the worst result would be that the City was ahead of the game. <br /> <br />Mr. Belcher proposed getting a base to start with. This would be an iterative process in which estimates <br />could be adjusted over time. He opined the first iteration could be available in 12 to 18 months. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly maintained the issue was not counting either housing units or population, but counting both, and <br />evaluating changing demographics as they would impact the mix of housing types. <br /> <br />Ms. Solomon, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to approve the Planning <br />Commission’s strategy for opportunity siting, infill standards, and population <br />allocations, as outlined in the AIS and as amended through the discussion. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Papé, Mr. Yeiter explained that what was missing from the GIS process was housing <br />projections that were required by the State to complete a buildable lands inventory. It would be easy to <br />find out through the GIS system what vacant land was available or what developed sites were eligible for <br />redevelopment. <br /> <br />Mayor Piercy felt there was a difference between the population expected and the demographics desired <br />for the community. She asserted that if the City continued down the current path, families would continue <br />to move outside of the area. It was important to make decisions based on providing housing families could <br />afford. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said she would vote against the motion because direct protection for neighborhoods had been <br />removed from the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she would vote against the motion for the same reason as Ms. Bettman, and she was totally <br />opposed to population allocations. <br /> <br />The motion passed, 5:2, with Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor in opposition. <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />