Item 3C - Housing Dispersal - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT C Minutes: Housing Policy Board - October 4, 2004 IV. City of Eugene Housing Dispersal Policy Mr. Weinman recapped the housing dispersal policy for Eugene, noting it was further delineated in the memorandum in HPB agenda packets by the same title as the agenda heading. He asked members to consider whether the policy still made sense in 2004. He demonstrated with the aid of a map that affordable housing projects were well-dispersed in the City. He related that he had checked around the State and found that no other cities had such a policy. He also sought out cities where larger projects with families were located or that had problems with such projects. He found no evidence of problems with such projects. He pointed out that an economy of scale came from building larger projects, the need for low-income housing was acute, and land supply was limited. He noted that the HPB did not exist when the policy was put into place. Given that the HPB acted as a filter for such projects, he thought the policy to be no longer necessary and somewhat redundant. He recommended looking at housing dispersal aspirationally and not from strict policy. Mr. Weinman underscored that the kind of projects that were coming out of the providers the HPB worked with were assets to any neighborhood and had not caused problems. He reiterated that the policy had recently prevented a project from being supported for development. He questioned the 60-unit maximum, as there was an economy of scale to be found with larger projects, and opposed limits to housing for families, calling it discriminatory. Mr. VanLandingham noted that both aspects of the policy could be overridden by the City Council. He discussed some of the history behind the policy, adding that it did address the concerns of those who did not want a project in their back yard, by building in every area of the City. He thought the argument could be made that the projects that came out of the HPB were improvements to neighborhoods. Ms. Cuellar remarked that not all low income projects were built on land bank sites. She averred that providers should be able to pencil out expenses in advance. Without knowing whether the City Council would grant an exception a developer could not risk planning for housing with greater than 60 units. Ms. Hadley did not oppose elimination of the 60-unit limit, but felt some criteria regarding dispersal should remain. She noted that land was cheap in the Trainsong neighborhood and wondered if this area would end up with a larger abundance of low-income housing than other areas. Mr. Pap6 also felt the 60-unit limit had outlived its usefulness and could result in limitations placed on a good mixed use project. In response to a question from Mr. Cabell, Mr. Weinman stated that about ten years ago the limit had been changed from a ;;hard" 80 to a more flexible 60. Mr. VanLandingham related that the Planning Commission had made the recommendation to change it. Ms. Cuellar stressed that the goal was to develop low income housing as long as it did not ;;cheapen the neighborhood." Ms. Tate recalled that the policy had hampered the development of the Apple Orchard project. She recommended that the HPB set up guidelines for the providers and not hard and fast policies. Mr. McCoy thought the housing dispersal policy prevented more efficient building projects. He foresaw the day in which some bond funding could be used for such projects and predicted the policy would effectively prevent larger projects. L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050110\S0501103C.doc