[NLC] A closer look at one of the "Neighborhood Livability" strategies

[Paul Conte]

FYI

>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:43:43 -0800
>To: Sarah Medary
>From: Paul Conte <pconte at picante-soft.com>
>Subject: Livability pillar, Strategy #1
>
>Sarah,
>
>I've reviewed the comments from the two city 
>staff and five other members of the TBL "Group 4" regarding the following:
>Pillar: Protect, repair, and enhance neighborhood livability
>Strategy #1: Do not increase densities in 
>neighborhoods above those allowed by existing 
>regulations, or undertake new strategies that 
>impact neighborhoods unless they are in 
>accordance with the goals and recommendations of 
>the Infill Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting Task Teams.
>There are several problems with the way this 
>strategy is worded, and these appear to have led 
>to potentially serious misunderstandings among 
>some of the seven individuals who discussed the strategy.
>
>Informally, the strategy appears to be intended 
>to ensure, to the degree possible, that any 
>increases in density within and near 
>established, low-density residential areas are consistent with ICS and OS.
>
>However, in the context of this strategy, the 
>term "in neighborhoods" is unclear. It's likely 
>that some people have read, and will read, the 
>strategy as preventing "efficiency measures" 
>that might increase housing capacity within the 
>boundaries of any neighborhood organization, 
>which would mean most of the area within the 
>current UGB. This misunderstanding may explain 
>such statements from Group 4 participants as the following examples:
>a) "If density isn't increased, people may move 
>to Veneta or further out and increase vehicle miles traveled."
>b) "Not increasing density inside the UGB means 
>adding more housing opportunities toward the 
>edge means new housing has less access to services."
>c) "Emphasis on keeping density low emphasizes 
>the status quo of “white” Eugene and the status of many of the 'dream home'."
>d) "Lower density is disincentive for services, 
>businesses – grocery stores, for example – 
>limits ability to create '20 minute neighborhoods'."
>All of these comments seem to assume this 
>strategy would prevent increasing the aggregate 
>density within the UGB or within a neighborhood 
>organization's boundaries, which is not what I 
>think is intended. (That would certainly not be 
>what any neighborhood advocate I've talked with thinks is appropriate.)
>
>As an example, the JWN has many areas that are 
>zoned for medium and high density and that 
>aren't built to maximum allowed density. In some 
>of these areas, building to the maximum density 
>allowed by existing regulations could be a 
>positive contribution to the neighborhood, as 
>long as the site and design were suitable. 
>Furthermore, the dual strategies of more 
>intensive development along transit corridors 
>and Opportunity Siting within existing 
>residential areas are sensible ways that higher 
>density than allowed by current regulations 
>could also be a positive contribution to the 
>neighborhood; again, as long as the site and design were suitable.
>
>So ... if the intent of this strategy, despite 
>its poor wording, is to make sure any increases 
>in density within and near established, 
>low-density residential areas are consistent 
>with ICS and OS, then looking at the above 
>examples of some TBL participant comments:
>a) The strategy does not prevent density increases;
>b) Ditto;
>c) The strategy does not emphasize keeping density low; and
>d) Ditto and ditto.
>The problem I've just discussed is one where the 
>strategy is misinterpreted as too restrictive. 
>That can be fixed by clarifying the wording.
>
>A potentially more serious, substantive problem 
>is that the strategy uses the wrong baseline -- 
>the density allowed by existing regulations. In 
>a number of areas, the density allowed by 
>existing regulations is too high and development 
>at the allowed levels would be inconsistent with 
>ICS and OS goals and objectives. In fact, the 
>ICS effort is focused on exactly those 
>situations where the current code -- in some 
>cases the max density -- allows development that 
>seriously diminishes neighborhood livability.
>
>The more appropriate baseline is (roughly) the 
>density of existing development within, and 
>close enough to impact, established, low-density, residential areas.
>
>Basically, I believe the thrust of this strategy 
>is "do no more harm", so the status quo ante for 
>established, low-density residential areas is 
>the proper holding point beyond which additional 
>development should be consistent with ICS and OS.
>
>Now, it's impractical and politically untenable 
>to have the strategy be: "Immediately allow no 
>further development in [these areas] until new 
>ICS and OS standards and processes are in place. 
>That would require a moratorium or major downzoning.
>
>Instead, what is practical, viable and essential 
>is for EE to use as part of the residential 
>capacity assessment, the following assumptions:
>a) No additional capacity from redevelopment 
>(i.e., on already developed lots) within [these areas], and
>b) Assume future density of development on 
>vacant land within [these areas] will be no greater than past density trends.
>
>These two assumptions would not prevent anyone 
>from developing vacant parcels or redeveloping 
>up to the density allowed by existing 
>regulations. But they would leave room for 
>Council to revise the regulations at a future 
>date (e.g., based on a specific ICS 
>recommendation) in a way that might lower the 
>maximum density, either directly or indirectly. 
>(Of course, Council would also be free to revise 
>the regulations to allow higher density, too.)
>
>So ... I would recommend revising the wording of 
>the strategy along the following lines (which 
>I'm sure some further work would improve):
>Strategy #1. Take steps to ensure any increases 
>in actual density within and near established, 
>low-density residential areas are consistent 
>with the goals and objectives of the Infill 
>Compatibility Standards and Opportunity Siting 
>Task Teams. These steps include completing the 
>ICS and OS work (see Strategy #2) and using the 
>following assumptions as part of the Envision 
>Eugene process for determining residential 
>housing capacity within the current UGB:
>a) On developed parcels within and near 
>established, low-density residential areas, 
>assume no additional capacity from redevelopment; and
>b) On vacant parcels within and near 
>established, low-density residential areas, 
>assumed the density of future development will 
>be no greater than the density of existing development.
>I would be happy to work with you and/or other 
>community members to develop a clearer and more 
>effective description of the strategy.
>
>-- Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.designcommunity.com/pipermail/nlc/attachments/20110227/a381a996/attachment.html