My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2011
>
CC Agenda - 04/11/11 Meeting
>
Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2011 10:26:09 AM
Creation date
4/7/2011 2:02:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/11/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
72
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
also provided support to the concepts of redevelopment and conversion. Mr. Pryor emphasized the <br />importance of identifying the acres in question soon. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr recalled that the CRG had considerable discussion of the subject of the needed acreage and <br />members had been “all over the board.” He believed the actual math justified the 400 acre number. City <br />Manager Ruiz concurred. Mr. Farr did not think it was an exact number, and he anticipated that much of <br />the land needed would be added in a “just-in-time” fashion. He emphasized the importance of larger <br />parcels. <br /> <br />Ms. O’Donnell continued the PowerPoint presentation. She discussed the strategies associated with the <br />pillar Provide affordable housing for all income levels and noted their connection to the housing mix and <br />housing mix ranges. She anticipated the Technical Resource Group, a subcommittee of the CRG, would <br />continue to work on the issue. Ms. O’Donnell shared the housing mix ranges under discussion and noted <br />the benefits of the ranges identified by community members. Councilors and commissioners asked <br />questions clarifying the information presented. <br /> <br />Strategy 1: Plan for a higher proportion of new housing stock to be multi-family than the 39 <br />percent of multi-family that currently exists. Increasing the proportion of multi-family housing <br />increases the amount of housing accessible to all income levels. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark said that as a result of past planning, Eugene had experienced slower growth in the number of <br />families with children and decreased demand for single-family detached housing. He suggested that if the <br />community planned for more of the same it would get it, and that meant more young families moving to <br />outlying communities so they could live in single-family homes. That meant declining school enrollment <br />and difficulty funding the schools. He did not want to continue that pattern. Mr. Clark asked if the City <br />wanted to force leapfrog sprawl and increase the number of people who worked in Eugene but lived <br />elsewhere. He preferred to keep those families in Eugene and suggested that the City needed to “get very <br />real” about what the market place really wanted. He asked if the City really knew that young families <br />wanted to live in multi-family housing. His experience suggested that they did not. He recommended <br />that the City consider census data from the entire region when considering the mix. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr suggested that the facts mentioned by Mr. Clark could also be attributed to a lack of affordable <br />single-family housing in Eugene. Those with median incomes could not afford Eugene’s median house <br />prices. He asked how much thought staff had given to the question of people who did not have the option <br />of single-family detached housing, although such housing was their preference. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor believed the question of housing mix represented a pivotal point in conversation. He said it <br />was also challenging because the City was attempting to predict future demographic and economic shifts. <br /> <br />Mr. Pryor suggested the housing mix was also affected by the suppliers. Homebuilders did not want to <br />build low-income housing because they made more money building more costly housing. He maintained <br />that the trends in Eugene were not driven by the market but by the suppliers. Mr. Pryor believed that <br />buyers, builders, and planners needed to recognize that and shift their thinking. He encouraged people to <br />put aside traditional thinking and gather all the information possible. <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Clark’s comments, Mr. Zelenka averred that school districts were “declining <br />everywhere.” He also maintained that young families did not drive the housing market; the housing <br />market was driven by the “boomers.” Mr. Zelenka asserted that the “boomers” were downsizing and <br />wanted to live downtown. Multi-family developments were being built for “downsizing boomers.” He <br />suspected that the trend was toward multi-family housing and suggested the council review the data <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Eugene City Council/ February 28, 2010 Page 4 <br /> Eugene Planning Commission Joint Work Session <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.