CC Minutes - 11/16/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Clark referred to Policy 2 of the Housing Dispersal Policy, which discouraged the creation of large areas characterized by low - income families, and pointed out there was already low- income housing in the area in question. In addition, the City had a guideline that no development should be larger than 60 units. Bascom Village would be constructed right next to an existing multi - family housing development that was also densely built and had a shallow setback. That development also took access onto County Farm Road, and he was concerned about the impact of adding more traffic to the street. Mr. Farr advocated for a deliberative approach that took into account the legitimate concerns of nearby residents. His overarching concern was the community's lack of affordable housing, both subsidized and nonsubsidized. He agreed the decision needed to be kept in context of the Envision Eugene process. He hoped to see more low- income housing in south Eugene. Mr. Zelenka agreed about the need for more affordable housing. He believed the Housing Dispersal Policy had worked well. He pointed out Policy 2 was aspirational rather than binding. He determined from Ms. Jennings that a previous council had changed the policy to be aspirational to reserve for itself the flexibility to balance Policy 2 against other City goals. Ms. Jennings pointed out the density being proposed at the site was less than other sites because of its size. Mr. Zelenka asked questions clarifying the site's designation and zoning, the school district's response to inquiries about the impact of the development of district schools, and the proposed development's access. Mayor Piercy pointed out to Mr. Farr that there was a considerable amount of low- income development south of the Willamette River. Mr. Pryor acknowledged that the proposal raised a collision of values and interests, specifically a collision between neighborhood character and livability and the need for affordable housing. There was far more need for housing than available housing and the City would make no progress if it was able to subsidize only 100 units per year. Other approaches were needed. He said that the conversation about neighborhood livability was a big one and it was happening throughout the community. He thought it important to place it in the context of other goals. Mr. Pryor pointed out to Mr. Clark that the existing unattractive housing Mr. Clark had mentioned was privately built and the City would have the ability to influence the appearance of Bascom Village because of the size of the site and the fact the proposed densities were lower than allowed. He said a private developer could develop the site much more densely. Mr. Pryor reiterated that the decision was representative of the collision between neighborhood livability and character and the council's larger conversation about how to provide housing and the housing mix ratio. He hoped future higher density developments more closely resembled the proposed Bascom Village development than the existing development along County Farm Road. Ms. Ortiz cautioned the council that neighborhood character and livability meant different things to different people. She said that livability meant security in the Trainsong neighborhood. She believed that neighborhood would welcome such a project as the ones she had toured were all attractive and well - managed. She looked forward to more discussion as the council continued its work on Envision Eugene. Mr. Brown also believed the Housing Dispersal Policy was working and pointed out to Mr. Farr that south Eugene had 15 affordable housing developments south of Willamette Street. There were 17 such developments in Ward 1 and 7 in the Bethel neighborhood. He said he would like to see social services more widely dispersed. He believed the area in question was right for such a development. Mr. Brown MINUTES— Eugene City Council November 16, 2011 Page 4 Work Session