Item 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

1. Develop implementation strategies and tools 2. Engage development community 3. Further investigation of neighborhood siting process 4. Formulate recommendations for implementation. Ms. Piercy underscored the importance of retaining inner-City neighborhoods with a mix of income levels and housing and richness of character. She asked if the process would identify those things in the community that should not be changed. Ms. Thomas said that issue had been raised and would be more fully developed by the Infill Compatibility Standards (ICS) Task Team. Mr. Clark said he had spent time touring a neighborhood that recently went through an infill compatibility process and had a much better understanding of the impacts of infill and opportunity siting. He asked if the project would study the impact of development, particularly opportunity siting, on infrastructure. Ms. Thomas said she would bring that issue to the technical advisory team of staff that was working with the project. Ms. Harding added that infrastructure impact varied by type and location of infill. She said infrastructure impact could be a factor in the site analysis process. Mr. Pryor said the challenge was to balance conflicting issues and figure out a way to develop infill policies that recognized neighborhood character and yet fulfilled the need to achieve greater density. He said the recommendations that emerge from the OS/ICS project would help the council chart a course through difficult territory. Mr. Poling pointed out that the naval reserve test site was only a hypothetical and did not represent any plans for the property. He was pleased that the model being developed could be used throughout the community. Ms. Solomon said she sat on the Housing Policy Board; one of its members participated on the OS task team and provided the board with regular updates, which were very helpful and informative. Mr. Zelenka said infill compatibility was the most important issue facing neighborhoods over the next few years. He noted that engaging the development community was identified as a next step, but he did not see the same emphasis on engaging neighborhoods. Ms. Thomas explained that the process to-date had been heavily weighted toward engaging neighborhoods, not the development community. She said the task team had several decisions to make as they moved forward, including how to reach out and involve other neighborhoods in the testing process. Ms. Harding said that focus groups with a cross-section of neighbor- hoods could be a part of the process. Ms. Taylor remarked that she had seen many examples of incompatible development in South Eugene. She commended the Jefferson Westside Neighbors for their work on the process. She asked why tax exemption or incentives would be required. Ms. Thomas said that a financial study had shown a considerable financial gap in affordability because people were unable to pay the amount of rent needed to cover the cost of that type of development. She said tax abatement was included for that reason and added that heavier investment by developers than was typical would be necessary as well. Ms. Harding said the study also addressed why development was not happening in places where zoning already allowed it and the City was promoting it by policy. She said the financial viability gap was a major factor and that would be studied in the next steps. Ms. Taylor said there appeared to be few neighbors on the task team. She asked about the difference between opportunity siting and infill compatibility. Ms. Harding said one way of describing the difference was that the infill compatibility project had mostly focused on preventing bad infill from happening; the MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 5 Work Session