Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

aging the housing stock was going to make it affordable. He suggested that making housing more affordable to build was the best way to create affordable housing. Mr. Far also believed the City needed to consider where people wanted to live. Mr. Brown noted that those residents aged 45-65 were the fastest growing segment of the population and they would start to reach age 75 in ten years, which coincided with the age homeownership rates started to decline. That suggested to him that there would be significant turnover in the ownership of single- family homes in 2021, and he asked if staff had quantified the number of houses that might be available. Ms. O’Donnell indicated she could provide that information. Mr. Brown asked why whether multi-family housing will always be subsidized and suggested that the council receive a brief presentation on why Eugene lacked unsubsidized affordable housing. Mr. Pryor emphasized the importance of taking a balanced approach to the issue of the housing mix, which required the council to consider all factors, including demographics, markets, livability, neighborhoods, and land supply. He did not believe he could support a figure for single-family housing that was less than 55 percent. He said residents were very concerned about the impact of the council’s decision on their neighborhoods, and he did not want to sacrifice them to achieve more density. Mr. Zelenka indicated support for the staff presentation and 55:45 mix. Ms. Ortiz also supported the 55:45 housing mix. Speaking to Mr. Farr’s concerns, Ms. Ortiz suggested that many factors came into consideration when a person purchased a house, and a person might choose to live in Veneta for the quality of life there even if the housing was more expensive. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor about the need to consider neighborhood livability. Speaking to Ms. Ortiz’s remarks, he observed that he worked with people who would like to live in Eugene but lived in outlying communities because they could not afford housing in Eugene. He believed that Eugene was creating a situation that caused outmigration to such communities and increased vehicle miles traveled. He said that was counterproductive. He suggested that Eugene could add land for single-family development that could be maintained in its present use for some time if single-family development did not occur. Mr. Poling was not yet convinced of the merits of the proposed ratio and looked forward to hearing more public input. Whatever the mix, he hoped it had enough flexibility to respond to market demands. Speaking to the issue of neighborhood livability, Ms. Gardner again reminded the council of the Seven Pillars, which were intended to help preserve the neighborhood character. She recalled that the City’s density strategy was focused primarily on transit corridors and mixed-use areas. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor about the importance of balance. He reiterated the importance of considering factors outside the community’s boundaries. He pointed out that schools in Eugene closed in the past year while schools in outlying communities were growing. Mr. Clark suggested that City policy was at odds with the market. Eugene had been encouraging dense development while the market demand was for affordable single-family housing, so the market was sending people to communities were housing was less expensive because of lower land costs. He asked why the answer to more affordable housing in Eugene was a call for more multi-family housing. Mr. Clark wanted to know how Eugene could decrease its land costs to be more competitive with those communities. He suggested information about demographics in nearby communities, their land costs, and the rates that single-family development occurred would be instructive. MINUTES—Eugene City Council September 28, 2011 Page 3 Work Session