Laserfiche WebLink
would result in more such development in those communities and higher transportation costs for those <br />residents because they would work in Eugene. Mr. Clark suggested that those costs would be reduced if <br />Eugene grew more incrementally toward those communities. <br />Mr. Pryor believed the housing trend was toward more multi - family but believed the ratio proposed in the <br />amendment was not supported by data; instead, it represented an article of faith, or where some of the <br />council wanted to go. He thought the manager's proposal was a prudent move toward more multi - family <br />housing. He feared the result of the amendment would be to increase densities in existing neighborhoods <br />and that would adversely affect neighborhood character. He believed the manager's proposal was an <br />attempt to preserve neighborhood character while avoiding sprawl. He was not willing to risk <br />neighborhood character. He agreed that the issue could be revisited in a few years. <br />Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Clark and Mr. Pryor. He said people did not want increased density in their <br />neighborhoods and the City would create opposition by attempting to force it. He pointed out that <br />communities such as Junction City, whose city limits were very proximate to Eugene, were welcoming <br />additional single - family development. He believed it would be most prudent to accommodate the type of <br />residential growth people wanted inside Eugene. People wanted single - family residences, and if it was <br />affordable they could remain in Eugene - Springfield rather than move to Creswell, Veneta, or Cottage <br />Grove. <br />Ms. Ortiz agreed that the market would ultimately drive the ratio. She preferred a 50:50 single - <br />family /multi - family ratio. <br />Mr. Brown believed that many residents welcomed multi- family developments in their neighborhood. He <br />welcomed more high -rise development in the central area. He believed that many people preferred to live <br />more densely. Speaking to the issue of leap frog sprawl, Mr. Brown maintained that Eugene's land would <br />always be more expensive than land in outlying communities and housing would always be cheaper there, <br />no matter what Eugene did. He agreed with Mr. Zelenka that senior citizens wanted to downsize, which <br />would free up many single - family houses. <br />Mayor Piercy suggested that the increased multi - family ratio spoke to the City's intention to require more <br />density, particularly along transit corridors. She did not think the City was talking about increasing <br />density in existing neighborhoods unless they welcomed such housing. <br />Mr. Clark continued to prefer the recommendation that came out of the process established by the City <br />Manager, which was intended to find community compromise. <br />Ms. Taylor agreed the market would dictate what happened, but the council could do what it thought best <br />to avoid sprawl. <br />City Manager Ruiz said his recommendation was intended to be aggressive without artificially <br />constraining the market. He did not believe that a lower single- family ratio created enough area for <br />people to build in a way that allowed the market to work. He said such artificial constraints added to <br />housing affordability issues and could affect neighborhood livability. In addition, increased vehicle miles <br />traveled had an environmental impact that needed to be considered. <br />The vote on the motion was 5:3; Mr. Poling, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Pryor voting no. <br />MINUTES— Eugene City Council June 11, 2012 Page 4 <br />Work Session <br />