Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDIC advances discussion on commercial redevelopment pilot, asks for planning input
Summary
Committee members reviewed a draft commercial redevelopment pilot policy that would prioritize higher-density, mixed-use infill projects and directed staff to return with planning-department input and a revised proposal at a later meeting.
At a meeting of the Economic Development Investment Committee, members discussed a proposed commercial redevelopment pilot policy aimed at encouraging higher-density, mixed-use infill projects in areas that are not blighted but could support greater value or density. The committee did not approve the policy; members agreed to continue discussion at a future meeting after receiving comments from the planning department and other stakeholders.
The draft policy, presented by Jim Gilmore, lists characteristics staff would evaluate in applications, including increased density or value compared with existing development, potential to attract primary-sector employers, shared parking and mixed uses, desirable land uses consistent with long-term city plans, and improved design or public-facing elements. “I just added a little bit of language after each one of these,” Gilmore said, describing the intent to leave some flexibility so varied projects can qualify without rigid thresholds.
The draft deliberately avoided hard numeric thresholds. Gilmore noted staff had not set specific dollar or square-foot targets: “It needs to be $50 a square foot. I haven't tried to put those kinds of numbers in. And so we would just kind of evaluate it on a case by case basis.” Committee members discussed alternatives, including a floating standard — for example, a percentage above the city average — versus a fixed dollar-per-square-foot requirement.
Committee members repeatedly urged that the policy be routed through planning and engineering before returning to the EDIC for action. One meeting participant said the policy should pass through the planning department first, and the chair confirmed he had already sent the draft to Nicole in planning for review. The committee also discussed use-case tensions such as confidentiality requests from large data centers and the need to balance developer certainty with public review. “Sometimes we know it's in zone industrial we know they're gonna have to follow the code and we go ahead and approve that and then the final approval and planning engineering and all that comes next,” Gilmore said.
Members discussed potential nonfinancial criteria such as shared parking and design improvements that could support denser development without creating vacant lots. They also noted the possibility of unfair competition for existing businesses if incentives were awarded inappropriately. The committee heard an example raised by one member about noise from a data center site in a neighboring jurisdiction — described as comparable to “a thousand grain dryer fans running 24 hours a day” — to illustrate community impacts that can arise from certain primary-sector projects.
After discussion, members agreed to continue the item to a future meeting and asked staff to solicit written comments and planning-department feedback. The chair said members could contact Gilmore with additional input ahead of the next discussion.
The committee did not take a formal vote to adopt the policy at the meeting; the action was to continue review and gather technical input and specific threshold proposals for later consideration.
