Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Clark believed many of the values expressed in the motion were already reflected in the Seven Pillars <br />that constituted the planning and implementation framework. He called for more emphasis on increasing <br />the community's tax base and jobs. <br />Ms. Ortiz wanted to establish thresholds for new businesses locating in the expansion areas to ensure they <br />were compatible with nearby residential uses and suggested the possibility of annexing the industries that <br />now existed to ensure they reported to the City's Toxics Right -to -Know Program. <br />Mr. Farr agreed Mr. Clark that the Seven Pillars incorporated the concerns expressed by the motion. <br />Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Clark but pointed out that things were constantly changing and no one had a <br />crystal ball. He thought the concepts mentioned by Mr. Clark were also encompassed by the Seven <br />Pillars and did not know how to more explicitly incorporate them into the plan. <br />The motion passed unanimously, 8:0. <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to amend the motion to revise the section <br />titled Land for Parks and Schools in Attachment A to direct staff to, if legally possible, <br />include the airport in the proposed UGB expansion. The motion passed unanimously, <br />8:0. <br />Housing mix <br />Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Brown, moved to amend the motion to direct the City <br />Manager to bring back for council consideration a revised proposal that used a future <br />housing mix of 45 percent single - family and 55 percent multi - family. <br />Ms. Taylor said her motion ensured the City would not need to expand its UGB for housing at all, in <br />keeping with national housing trends. It would allow the community to use its land more wisely. <br />Mr. Poling did not support the amendment. He referred to a survey that indicated that a 60 percent single - <br />family ratio was the national trend. He said many compromises had been made on the mix from both <br />sides. He believed the ratio proposed by the manager was most appropriate mix, and feared that changing <br />it now would "draw a line in the sand" and divide the community. <br />Mr. Zelenka asserted that national and local trends argued for a lower single - family ratio. He believed <br />that younger residents preferred multi - family living and older residents were downsizing to live in multi- <br />family housing. Mr. Zelenka acknowledged that the market would largely drive the mix but believed the <br />City Council should send a message that was "more inclusive of the trends." <br />Mr. Zelenka, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the amendment to change the ratio <br />to 52 percent for single - family housing and 48 percent for multi - family. <br />Mr. Brown also believed recent local trends supported a lower single - family housing ratio. He did not <br />anticipate those trends would change before the council's first review of the ratio. <br />Mr. Clark opposed the amendment. He recommended that the council consider the entire market area <br />when it discussed trends. He said people were moving to outlying communities with lower housing costs <br />and they were buying single - family houses in single- family neighborhoods. He anticipated the motion <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 11, 2012 Page 3 <br />Work Session <br />