Laserfiche WebLink
The motion passed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Brown voting no. <br />Mr. Farr, seconded by Mr. Clark, moved to direct staff to plan for a housing mix of 55 <br />percent single family, 45 percent multi - family. <br />Ms. Ortiz acknowledged she was not invested in the ratio as she believed the market would drive the <br />ratio. However, she had received considerable input from those who had spent months of their time on <br />the topic and had changed her mind. She supported the motion. <br />Mr. Pryor said some might not find the difference between the ratios significant but at one level he <br />considered it a monumental difference because of the months of work put into the subject by citizens. He <br />determined from Ms. Gardner that the community and public input had supported the 55:45 ratio, but the <br />Community Resource Group had declined to offer a specific recommendation regarding the ratio <br />believing it was a policy choice for the council. Mr. Pryor thought the subject deserved more thoughtful <br />deliberation than could be accomplished at the last minute. He thought the ratio adopted at the June 11 <br />meeting had been arbitrary and would call into question his ability to support the plan. <br />Mr. Zelenka did not think the adopted ratio had been arbitrary. The ratio was among the many ranges <br />discussed and many people were not in consensus regarding the higher single - family ratio. He said his <br />motion was an attempt to split the difference and arrive at a political compromise. He recalled that the <br />Sustainability Commission had preferred a number at the lower end of the range. He did not think the <br />council should merely rubberstamp the manager's recommendation without further analysis and the <br />potential of additional compromise. <br />Mr. Brown believed it was appropriate that the Community Resource Group had deferred to the council in <br />regard to the ratio. He concurred with Mr. Zelenka's remarks. He did not think that changing the ratio <br />was disrespecting the work of the Community Resource Group, which had not reached consensus on the <br />topic. He said the council could revisit the ratio in five years to determine if it was reflective of local and <br />national trends. He opposed the amendment. <br />Ms. Taylor did not think the council had to agree with its advisory committees to demonstrate its respect <br />for their work. The experts she considered knowledgeable did not support the staff - recommended ratio. <br />She continued to oppose expansion of the UGB and the council had the power to select a mix that did not <br />require any expansion. Ms. Taylor emphasized the importance of the pillar related to climate change and <br />resiliency and said that required people to drive fewer miles, for food to come from nearby, and air <br />protection aided by forest protection. <br />Mr. Farr noted the Planning Commission's support for the staff recommendation. He suggested the City <br />could reduce vehicle miles traveled if it made housing more affordable in the Eugene - Springfield <br />metropolitan area. <br />Mr. Clark expressed appreciation for the thoughtful and deliberative nature of the planning process and <br />said he wanted to honor the process and its results. He supported the motion. <br />Mayor Piercy expressed concern that many compromises had been made throughout the process but in the <br />end those who prevailed in regard to the housing ratio had been unwilling to see the council use its best <br />judgment to make any changes to the ratio. She appreciated the journey that the community had taken <br />and believed the community had grown in how members talked to each other, but she did not feel good <br />about the outcome represented by the motion. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 13, 2012 Page 2 <br />Work Session <br />