Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Opportunity Siting Mr. Lawless thanked the City Council for the opportunity to meet. He expressed his hope that the work session would be an open conversation and exchange of ideas. He said the items were not intended to be a full work plan, but rather an outline of ways for the commission to move forward with staff and constituents to ensure everyone was on the same page. At the same time, it was important to move forward with identifying, preparing and working with potential options for opportunity sites to reach Eugene’s projected density goals. He added that the commission received good input from citizens who clarified issues and raised new points of discussion about what Opportunity Siting could be and what it would do. Mr. Lawless said the process would an iterative one that would need to move forward a little bit at a time. Ms. Bettman previously suggested that one or two specific sites be identified for a pilot project. Mr. Lawless asked if the concept of targeting City-owned or City-controlled property for one of the first test cases would uncover opportunities from the private sector or neighborhoods. City-owned or City- controlled sites could have more limitations, thus making them more difficult to work with. Ms. Taylor arrived at 11:42 a.m. Mr. Kelly said Opportunity Siting, in combination with infill standards, could support the idea that growing more densely was desirable. Density needed to be selective, noting one size did not fit all parcels, every R-2 zone, or every neighborhood. Mr. Kelly said his biggest concern about Opportunity Siting was the timidity of starting with one or two test sites. He would like to see the Planning Commission develop specific criteria with specific input from neighborhoods and the development community and move ahead on a broad number of sites. He asserted the City Council should not be involved in picking the sites, and the sites should not be restricted to City- owned or City-controlled sites. Ms. Bettman said the context of where Opportunity Siting originated had gotten lost in the year since the first motion passed. Nodal development originated with the Land Use Measures Task Force for the TransPlan update as part of the regional transportation plan to accommodate growth using land use measures and had reached a dead end. It destroyed neighborhoods and degraded property values. Ms. Bettman asserted this needed to be a phased implementation and the first phase should be a demonstration site. Phase 2 should review identified MUCs, and Phase 3 should look for broader applications. The concept of Opportunity Siting was getting broadened when it was strictly housing density, not mixed-use density. Mr. Poling concurred with most of Mr. Kelly’s comments about the integrity of the neighborhood and the density. However, he preferred a limited number of sites as proposed by Ms. Bettman. He was not certain if the site selection should be approved by the City Council. In response to a question from Mr. Lawless, Mr. Poling responded the City Council would not need to be more involved at the selection level if it was involved in identifying the approval criteria. Mr. Belcher saw the challenge as bringing together City staff, the neighborhoods and a developer willing to collaborate. He averred that the more restrictions were placed upon the physical location of proposed sites, the less likely it would be that the magic mix of all three willing partners would occur. Mr. Papé felt Mr. Belcher’s points were good ones, with the most difficult challenge being getting the private development community to see the vision. Making the numbers work would bring private MINUTES—Eugene City Council July 17, 2006 Page 2 Work Session