Laserfiche WebLink
that do not support higher-density, infi//, mixed-use, and redevelopment." <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau reviewed a suggested change to Policy 14 proposed by Jan Spencer (struck text <br />proposed for deletion): "Development shall be required to pay the full cost of extending <br />infrastructure and.,,., v,,,,..,~,,,,i,'~,~, ~, .... ~ ~-'-~ ~-~' City ,,,n, .... ~'-~' ways ~ .... ~,o~,4~-,~, ~, .... ~o ~,~ <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that the revision proposed by Mr. Upson could be interpreted as limiting <br />infrastructure and services to those areas with higher density, infill development, etc. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that Mr. Upson's suggested revision could be interpreted as calling for subsidies <br />if the developer supported the items in the list. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Laue, to accept the text proposed by Mr. <br /> Spencer. <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that the policy as written appeared to have an emphasis on subsidy of <br />infrastructure and services in concert with infill and redevelopment, and did not think that the City <br />constructed many major infrastructure improvements in association with infill and redevelopment. <br />He said that the point behind the policy was actually the need for the City to recover the full cost <br />of development as it occurred. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson said that some areas of the community may require a government subsidy to <br />ensure that infill and redevelopment of large commercial and industrial areas could occur. Such <br />subsidies might be needed to support the removal of hazardous materials, for example. Ms. <br />Childs concurred. She pointed out that the text did not commit the council to a subsidy but <br />allowed staff the latitude to examine the possibility. <br /> <br />Ms. Swanson Gribskov agreed with Ms. Childs. She said that the proposed amendment <br />suggested that there would never be a time when the City will provide a subsidy. She felt that <br />the council might want to reinforce some of its public policies with such subsidies. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr said that the council needed to ensure that the residents being assessed development <br />fees were assessed such fees in a transparent and equitable manner. He did not support the <br />motion as he did not think it was equitable that the exceptions included in the policy were the only <br />exceptions for subsidies. He said that he would like to add other exceptions that could be <br />subsidized because of their importance and benefit to the entire community. Mr. Croteau <br />suggested affordable housing was of benefit to the community. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said that the original policy provided loopholes for developers to avoid costs. <br /> <br />Mr. Tollenaar said that realistically, redevelopment may have to be subsidized. He was <br />convinced that Eugene would already have high levels of redevelopment were it not for the <br />extraordinary costs involved. He stressed the policy's focus on the word "examine." <br /> <br />Mr. Laue said that redevelopment was already occurring in Eugene without subsidy. He said that <br />the policy in question was the only one the council had that addressed one of the most important <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 2, 1998 Page 7 <br />5:30 p.m. <br /> <br /> <br />