CC Minutes - 11/21/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

serve a new house are pretty much constant. She said that the recommendation would not raise the cost of providing the infrastructure, but rather making the developer cover more of the costs. She said that those costs would either be picked up by the taxpayer or the developer. Ms. Bettman said that the biggest problem she had with the RAC recommendations was the lack of a geographic component in the transportation SDC. She noted the RAC recommendation for a ten percent SDC discount in the nodal development area. Ms. Bettman said the RAC lacked data to support the geographic component, and she wanted to continue to pursue the concept by having staff examine what other cities were doing in terms of that concept, or develop a few options for such a component. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to direct the City Manager to return to the City Council with a proposal for a geographic component for the transportation SDC. Mr. Kelly also thanked the RAC and staff. He shared Ms. Bettman's concern over the lack of a geographic component in the transportation SDC. He did not expect adoption of the motion to slow down implementation of the RAC recommendations. Mr. Kelly noted the exemption in the methodology for a change of use in downtown, and said he would like to see some proposals from staff that consider the recommendation in light of Growth Management Policy 14. He said there may be a geographic adjustment that recognized the increased cost of services at the periphery, but that could be offset across the entire community by lower SDCs for developments that support higher density, infill, mixed use, or redevelopment. The City may not be collecting more SDC revenues, but more from some types of development and less from other types. Mr. Meisner indicated support for the motion and called attention to the time. Ms. Nathanson, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend time for the item by three minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Pap8 not yet having arrived at the meeting). Ms. Nathanson said that development at the periphery was a problematic issue for her, whether the discussion was taxing parking spaces or levying higher SDCs on peripheral development. She pointed out that some peripheral development reduced trip lengths; she cited grocery stores and home improvement stores examples of development that might mean avoided vehicle miles traveled. Ms. Nathanson said that the approach suggested in the motion would require care to ensure how to provide the right incentives. Ms. Bettman thought Ms. Nathanson's concern was addressed by the ten percent exemption for nodal development. The motion passed, 6:1; Mr. Farr voting no (Mr. Pap8 not yet having arrived at the meeting). Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct staff to move forward with implementation of the revised transportation SDC methodology as proposed. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0 (Mr. Pap8 not yet having arrived at the meeting). MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 21, 2001 Page 5 Work Session