Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Rayor said that, assuming the SDCs collected were revenue-neutral, he believed it was <br />reasonable for the City to use SDCs as an tool for central city development. He suggested that <br />the adjustment could also be a planning tool in the Planning and Development Department's <br />toolbox for economic development, and suggested the PDD staff be asked to review the options. <br />Mr. Rayor thought SDCs could also be used as a tool to promote neighborhood commercial and <br />nodal development. He suggested that the council consider discrete exemptions to the <br />adjustment, such as nodal development zones. Mr. Rayor supported options 1 or 3. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ said that there seemed to be a lot of theory in the AlS without much practical data in <br />support of a geographic adjustment. He questioned the concept that development in one area <br />had a lot more impact on the infrastructure than development in other areas. Mr. Pap~ suggested <br />that it was more expensive to expand services such as sewer services in a densely developed <br />area such as downtown than to extend them to the periphery, so he was having trouble making a <br />correlation between financial impact on the City and a development's location. He was also very <br />concerned about the issue of equity. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr suggested that those councilors with more access to downtown had a different opinion on <br />the issue than councilors with less access. His alternative transportation access to downtown <br />was not good. He agreed with the remarks of Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Meisner, saying there was <br />not enough information to demonstrate the need for a geographic adjustment. He believed the <br />council should continue to support downtown while keeping in mind that most Eugene residents <br />do not live there. He did not think that the City should penalize people for living and shopping in <br />locations other than downtown. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that he was not an advocate of big box shopping centers, having worked in small <br />retail establishments in competition with those businesses. However, he asked where in <br />downtown such a business could locate given that it was already a developed area. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor believed the residential element of the issue was complicated and she thought it would <br />be difficult for the City to find a fair way to charge development. However, she believed that there <br />was no question that a big store on the edge of town generated more trips. She said that such <br />businesses should pay more in SDCs for the additional trips they attracted. In response to Mr. <br />Fart's remarks, Ms. Taylor thought the downtown center, far from being fully developed, had <br />considerable developable land. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey did not think the council should adopt such an adjustment. He questioned whether <br />the City was prepared to respond to the unintended consequences of the approach. He <br />determined from Mr. McVey that the RAC members voted 6:1 against a geographic adjustment. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said that as a practical matter, there were few remaining locations for big box retail. <br />He thought the effect of the adjustment would be to drive such businesses out of the community, <br />and the impact would be the same in terms of trip length. In addition, there would be no SDC <br />revenues to deal with the impact of those trips. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey said he agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks about excluding nodal development if such <br />an adjustment was adopted. He noted that the Royal node included no employment base, and <br />suggested that to charge an additional SDC to businesses locating in an area without a great deal <br />of critical mass was not a good idea. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 9, 2002 Page 6 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />