Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Sina Kraft, <br />1939 Hilyard Street, Ward 3, was a big fan of affordable and low-income housing. When she <br />bought her home in 1986, she enjoyed the diversity of pre- and post-war homes, and the fact that her <br />neighbors ranged in age from 7 to 82. Most carports and garages were on the alley, neighbors met each <br />other daily, 15 homes were owner-occupied and four homes were rentals. Today, only eight were owner- <br />occupied and 11 were rentals. Three new owners were families with young children. Two weeks ago, <br />construction vehicles arrived to demolish one of the single-family homes and clear-cut the lot. Construction <br />had begun on a two-story, five-unit apartment building. Refinements from the ICS and Neighborhood <br />Leaders would be welcome and needed to be added later. Tonight, she urged the council to quickly approve <br />the proposed code amendments to preserve what was left of the unique character and quality of all Eugene <br />neighborhoods while providing a diversity of housing for everyone. <br /> <br />Gordon Anslow, <br />1953 Garden Avenue, Ward 2, was speaking as co-chair of the ICS Task Team a co- <br />owner of a design/build business, and a private individual. The ICS had been asked to review everything in <br />the Eugene Code related to building new dwelling units which had been a daunting task. With the MICAP <br />provisions inserted by the City Council, certain neighborhoods would be allowed to cut in front of the ICS <br />process. Although he objected to the MICAP process running parallel to ICS work, the City Council <br />inserted items that represented use of the MICAP process to Trojan Horse the will of a few in the process, <br />as a means to side-step the process, and have the merits of their desires weighed by the ICS, balanced <br />against the interests of other neighborhoods and interest groups and integrated into a set of rules crafted for <br />all of Eugene. This undermined the ICS work and did not sit well with him. Mr. Anslow and Steve Baker <br />of the West University Neighborhood (WUN) were on the ICS multi-family committee which was <br />discussing ways to ultimately address legitimate parking concerns in the resident parking program areas <br />near the University of Oregon (University). These would require more parking and make changes to <br />Chapter 9 that would allow designers and developers more creative ways to provide additional parking on <br />site-specifics that would be pursued if given to ICS. Under the present form, ICS would have no say on the <br />issue. As a member of the design/build community, many of the MICAP proposals, taken as a whole, <br />would stifle affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. Amendments 5 and 7, were not minor, and <br />should not be adopted. He had studied eight recent projects and none could be built due to requirements for <br />large new parking lot areas. The amount of land required for parking limited the amount of remaining space <br />used for outdoor living, circulation and landscaping, thus reducing the amount of achievable density. As a <br />private citizen, he was appalled that the City of Eugene was willing to give wealthy homeowners whatever <br />they asked for without concern for the effect on the lives of students and people on low- and fixed-incomes. <br />Eugene was on its way to becoming a city for the wealthy, while blue collar families, elderly and disabled <br />people struggled to find decent, affordable housing, and had to live in outlying areas. As currently written, <br />MICAP was moving in the wrong direction. <br /> <br />st <br />Joan Dunbar, <br />1234 East 21 Avenue, Ward 3, was concerned about Amendment 5, and urged the council <br />to adopt the MICAP version. The current code was broken and she urged the council to act quickly and <br />use common sense with all of the amendments. She understood the need for affordable housing and the <br />need to increase densities. The code also talked about livability. Eugene had a history of allowing <br />buildings that violated the surrounding neighborhood she said, citing YA-PO-AH Terrace and Prince <br />Lucien Campbell as examples. The proposed code changes provided an opportunity to change the codes <br />before buildings went up. Amendment 5, transitioning building heights, provided a win/win situation and <br />was a compromise solution providing an example of what people could do when constituents worked <br />together. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 16, 2008 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br />