CC Minutes - 12/08/08 Work Session

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Ms. Solomon said she sat on the Housing Policy Board; one of its members participated on the OS and ICS task teams 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 whether 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 teams. 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 focus of opportunity siting was trying to find ways to encourage development that was good for neighbor- hoods and neighbors would welcome. Ms. Taylor asked if there was currently any way to prevent incompatible development. Ms. Harding replied that it could be limited only to the extent allowed by current zoning regulations. Ms. Bettman stated that bifurcating the process into infill compatibility and opportunity siting meant it was no longer consistent with the original objective to absorb more housing units within the urban growth boundary without destroying existing neighborhoods. She said the result would be density that was no longer compatible. She said one of the problems with lack of higher density development was that they were originally intended to occur in mixed use centers where appropriate services were available; there was a disincentive to develop away from those services. She said allowing indiscriminate density everywhere eliminated the effectiveness of leverage such as incentives. She stressed the importance of a firm urban growth boundary to maintaining the value of land. In response to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Harding said one of the criteria for identifying an opportunity site was active property owner participation. She said the task team felt it was critical to work with a willing owner of property, whether the owner was the developer or not. Ms. Piercy asked if neighbors had discussed what they wanted their neighborhood to look like in 20 years. She encouraged that discussion as a part of the process. Ms. Thomas said there was a workshop exercise that did look at current neighborhood character and what needed to be protected, but not necessarily at a long-range vision of the neighborhood. She said that conversation could be included in future. MINUTES—Eugene City Council December 8, 2008 Page 6 Work Session