Item B: Ordinance on MUPTE - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In January 2001, the council reinstated MUPTE with the new guidelines and adopted a boundary area that was limited to the heart of downtown, substantially smaller than what had previously existed. In February 2003, the council recognized that no multi-family development occurred in the core area (including the pre-2001 boundary area) after the moratorium took effect (Broadway Place and High Street Terrace were approved prior to the moratorium but constructed during the moratorium period). The council then directed staff to return with proposed amendments to the program as part of a series of “downtown tools.” In July 2003, the council approved a small expansion of the MUPTE boundary to include the City’s th development site at 14 and Olive (the future home of The Tate Condominiums) and directed staff to return at a later date with additional amendments to the program and boundary. In early 2004, during multiple meetings, the council debated the merits of setting more specific and strict quality standards for MUPTE-approved developments and settled on the current approach, which provides a range of options to be evaluated by the council prior to approval. The council voted to expand the boundary area for MUPTE-eligible housing and amended the rules to include quality standards and increased public notification requirements. The amendments also eliminated an annual fee that was paid into a low-income housing fund if at least 50% of the housing built was not low-income. This was done after some members of council asserted that charging the fee reduced the incentive and ability to construct higher quality housing. In October 2007, the council reviewed the MUPTE program and asked for an additional work session. A motion to consider shrinking the boundary to the downtown, but including both The Tate and Co-Housing sites was approved 5-4, with the Mayor specifically expressing a willingness to continue the discussion about the boundary once more information is received from staff. Other council comments included an interest in expanding the boundary and options to make the selection criteria more objective than subjective. In November 2007, when discussing two specific MUPTE requests, additional questions about the program were raised. Responses to the questions raised at the October and November 2007 meetings are provided below. In May 2008, the council reviewed the program at a work session and requested a public hearing on amendments that would adjust the boundary to include the Highway 99 corridor and Trainsong Neighborhood, limit the core area to the downtown (removing the West University neighborhood), and create objective standards for approval. In July 2008, the council conducted a public hearing. Prior to public testimony, the council voted to schedule a work session after the public hearing followed by action at a later meeting. Three people testified, all in support of the program. Each supported the current boundary and asked that it not be made smaller. Terry Connolly, spoke in favor of expanding the boundary. Ginger Newman argued that the boundary should not be decreased without much longer notice (e.g. five years), indicating that she has spent years preparing for a potential use of the program in the West University Neighborhood. Dan Neal supported the program and encouraged MUPTE approval to have a stronger tie to sustainable building practices. Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M081022\S081022B.docm