CC Minutes - 06/21/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Farr expressed appreciation for Mr. Conrad's remarks about housing, and noted the high cost of housing in Eugene. He said that there was disagreement about the impact of the code on the cost of housing. He believed that it was essential to consider cost. Mr. Farr said that he wanted Eugene to be a city where his children could afford to buy a house, and he did not perceive that being likely. At what level, he asked, does affordability enter into the discussion. Was it a strong topic? Mr. Conrad said that there were at least two commissioners who had spent time dealing with that issue, and he believed it was discussed. He said that the draft code would allow a variety of housing types and while the alternative path might be more expensive, it would be an alternative. Mr. Farr thanked the commission for discussing affordability. Ms. Levis said that the commission was considering affordability to the degree of added costs per unit per month. She said that the commission wanted to ensure that it was not looking at things from such an abstract point of view that it lost sight of the issue. Ms. Levis said that it had been an exciting year. She noted the commission's hearing on the Marist appeal. The commission extensively addressed TransPlan in terms of the big picture and the funding available. The Glenwood transfer was a gratifying but difficult decision. Nodal development was fascinating and it was helpful to see how it would work in actual practice. Ms. Levis cited infill and density versus the urban growth boundary as competing values. Ms. McMillan suggested that the nodal development projects could be a way to accomplish the neighborhood refinement planning effort. Mr. Lee asked if the commission anticipated the salmon listing would be a major issue for the community. Mr. Conrad responded that the commission discussed it briefly but not in depth. He added that the commission was more focused on wetlands because not all are delineated, although the Residential Lands Study made an estimation of the amount of impacted land. As development occurred, the City will need to do a site-by-site review to address those issues. Mr. Conrad believed that the listing would have an impact on development. He noted the commission's discussions about the relationship between density and wetlands, wetlands as amenities, and development types that would impact wetlands more lightly. Mr. Lee thought the listing would have a "monumental" impact on the City because he believed a "take" could be defined in any way. He suggested that LUCU could be affected and said that the commission should move on with the knowledge that there would be an impact. Mr. Kelly said that the impact of design standards on housing prices was a point well taken, but reminded the commission of the council's directive regarding design standards. Regarding TransPlan, Mr. Kelly noted the new draft TransPlan had been published and the commission had the benefit of the hearings. He suggested that the commissioners discuss what changed from the last draft of TransPlan to the current draft. Mr. Torrey urged the commission to keep in mind that there were many people unfamiliar with the TransPlan document. He said that the urban growth boundary was not sacred and could be affected by issues such as wetlands. He pointed out that there would be a prison one mile from the City's city limits because of Junction City's decision to extend its urban growth boundary to encompass the prison. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 21, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m.