CC Minutes - 08/10/09 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark questioned how those growth assumptions took into account the City’s growth policy related to working cooperatively with urban partners and nearby cities to avoid urban sprawl and preserve rural character outside the UGB. Ms. Gardner said that issue had not been specifically considered in the ECLA process but could be pursued in future conversations. Mr. Zelenka commented that growth rates, such as construction of single-family homes and density of development, were dramatically different over the last three years than the figures reflected in averages over the last eight years. He asked if it would be more accurate to use recent numbers in the model rather than averages. Mr. Dedrick said the period of time for which data was reviewed was defined by statute as since the last code update, 2001-2008. He said the committee felt the average of 64 percent for single- family dwellings seemed high. A review of the last 30 years indicated that 55 percent was more realistic as larger developments could have a disproportionate impact in a shorter period of time. Mr. Zelenka suggested that the density per acre and housing type figures should be modified. Mr. Dedrick replied that the advisory committee had already asked to see both higher and lower variables for housing mix and housing density in scenarios. Ms. Taylor asked why the council had to pass a motion instead of waiting for other scenarios. She said the motion language seemed to mean the recommended values were being accepted. Mr. Dedrick said the motion would inform staff that the baseline data was an acceptable starting point. He said staff would continue to provide scenarios. Ms. Taylor asked if a 1.4 percent employment growth rate indicated how much land would be needed as well as the number of jobs. Mr. Dedrick said the employment forecast translated into jobs created and the City would need to plan for land. Trends indicated the employment sectors, job types and density that could be anticipated. The council could express a preference for certain types of jobs. Mr. Brown thought the 1.4 percent employment growth rate over 20 years was too high because it would take several years for the City to recover jobs lost in the past two years. He asked if the PSU forecast was the basis for the employment growth data. Mr. Dedrick said the PSU forecast was only relevant to housing. Ms. Ortiz remarked that staff was going in the right direction. She pointed out that one large employer could make up for the recent job losses. She looked forward to future conversations as more scenarios were developed. Ms. Piercy commented that small cities had strong opinions about their destinies and Eugene had no ability to control their desires for growth, but all jurisdictions in Lane County should plan cooperatively for the future. Mr. Clark asked that the council have an informed conversation about accelerating the growth rate at which jobs were recovered and the impact that might have on land need. Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved, with the understanding that there would be dif- ferent scenarios in the future, to direct the City Manager to move forward with the baseline assumptions, which is a starting point, expressed as recommended values in column 2 of At- tachment C, for the analysis of future employment land needs, residential land needs, and public and semi-public land needs. Mr. Clark offered a friendly amendment to add the following at the end of the motion: “as a baseline to inform the policy discussions and development of future scenarios.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 10, 2009 Page 3 Work Session