Laserfiche WebLink
community grew up, or out, or both, it had to be growth based on rationale discussion, real data, and <br />research. She did not get the impression there was a strong camp in opposition to one approach over <br />another, although she acknowledged there was a perception that was the case at the beginning of the <br />process. She thought the CRG had worked hard to overcome that perception. <br />Mr. Slattery acknowledged he entered the process with bias because of the economic challenge of doing <br />density infill development in neighborhoods that opposed it and because he did not consider such infill a <br />reasonable offset to UGB expansion. Neighborhood groups opposed density infill because much of what <br />had been constructed was ugly. He suggested the City had been aggressive in encouraging infill because <br />of the potential it would offset the need for UGB expansion. He believed the approach had gotten <br />somewhat out of control because he did not think anyone anticipated what had resulted. It provoked a <br />community reaction, as expressed through the CRG membership, of "don't mess with our neighborhood." <br />He cited the University area as an example of a neighborhood where residents were dissatisfied with the <br />nature of the infill development that was affecting the neighborhood. <br />Mr. Slattery said that people he thought would oppose any discussion of the UGB had been very open to <br />the discussion. He believed the CRG members had been open to each other's input. He predicted the <br />process was not going to end in February because so much remained to be done. <br />Mayor Piercy said she saw many discussions at the CRG about the best way to accommodate anticipated <br />growth in a way that best preserved existing neighborhoods. <br />Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of design standards to avoid inappropriate or incompatible <br />development that impinged on existing housing. She cited housing built too near existing housing or <br />multi -story housing in a neighborhood of single - family housing as examples of incompatible <br />development. She commended good examples of development such as Cascade Manor and suggested <br />there was more room for such development. <br />Ms. Taylor believed that accessibility depended on a living wage and advocated for council passage of a <br />living wage ordinance that affected the City of Eugene and its contractors to serve as an example for the <br />community. She said any company that received subsidies to relocate to Eugene should have to pay its <br />employees a living wage. <br />Mr. Zelenka suggested a future benefit of the Envision Eugene process would be the community <br />education about planning that occurred. He believed such education was essential to residents' <br />understanding of planning, which had a big impact on residents' lives. He suggested a lack of planning <br />for the West University Neighborhood led to the fact it was largely dominated by rental housing with its <br />associated problems. <br />Mr. Zelenka agreed with Ms. Taylor's remarks about the importance of a living wage to social equity and <br />hoped the City did something about that as well. He said the City could only set an example. <br />Mr. Zelenka believed that some of the objections to infill development was based on the fact neighbors <br />did not feel heard. He recalled that the City Council had amended the code to require developers to talk <br />to neighborhood associations about their projects with the hope that communication would result in <br />better, more compatible projects. He believed the change had resulted in more acceptable and compatible <br />projects. <br />Mr. Clark determined from City Manager Ruiz that the Seven Pillars were intended to guide the Envision <br />Eugene process. Mr. Clark suggested that he might not agree with those as the most overriding process <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 12, 2010 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />